*Moral Arguments* 44 00:16 Generic Argument from the Objectivity of Morality 45 00:39 Abductive Argument from the Objectivity of Morality 46 01:18 The Normative Implications of Evil 47 02:12 Evil as Privation of Good 48 03:18 Horrendous Evils 49 04:53 Universal Moral Beliefs 50 05:52 Sidgwick and Kant 51 06:48 A Kantian Argument from Adams 52 09:06 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice 53 10:27 Layman’s Moral Argument 54 12:12 The Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral 55 14:24 The Moral Gap 56 15:52 Duty to Promote the Highest Good 57 16:49 Objective Obligations and Duties 58 18:41 Argument from Conscience 59 20:22 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing 60 21:52 Moral Knowledge 61 23:16 Apprehension of Objective Norms 62 23:58 Altruism: Schloss 63 25:00 Altruism: Pruss
@@oliverhug3 Can you provide an argument for Naturalism / Atheism that isn't presuppositional? Both are universal negative fallacies (as they claim God or the supernatural don't exist. It would be required to be all-knowing to know either).
I really don't see how these are in any way impressive. One of the main premises shared by many of these arguments is that humans have a sense of good and evil which can be seen in their reactions to goodness or abhorrent evil. That, however, is not something mysterious which points at a supernatural being. It is quite normal. We are mostly horrified and disgusted by such things that adversely impact lives, safety, and well-being in general. That is because it is in our very nature and our best interest to live, be safe, and be well. When we see crimes committed against the well-being of others, especially our loved ones, who give us pleasure, we feel empathy. We feel empathy because our mind mirrors what we observe and puts ourselves in the position of things that we see, including bad things. Since we mentally put ourselves into a bad position, and deal with the implication of being impacted by such "evil" ourselves, we dislike and condemn it. That is why we eventually decide that it is evil. Needless to say, things that we think are evil are mostly dysfunctional from the perspective of an ideal observer. What we see here is that our perception of evil is functional. This does not, in any way, lead to God, unless we disregard our knowledge of sociology, history, psychology, and neuroscience; and wilfully leave everything to faith.
If morality means simply whatever promotes human well being, then okay. Is that your view? If so can you argue for that view? How does eugenics, for example, play into that view?
@@barry.anderberg animal rights activists and vegans (many of whom are atheist) would have a massive disagreement with the premise that morality is whatever promotes human well being. The irony of that just amuses me 😂
@@elgatofelix8917 The well-being of a human is for every human different. To respond to your example, animal activists just relate to the animals as if it’s a human and think about how they would feel about their situation and so have a feeling of justice about it and want to change their situation to the better so they can also feel better and improve therefore their well-being.
@@barry.anderberg I'm not making a claim that certain things are good or bad but merely describing how people come to the conclusions of good and evil. Eugenics, like euthanasia, is indeed a good example to understand that morality is not simply objective but more dependent on people's perception of how things affect them.
@@artificial_artist actually they usually prioritize the well being of animals above that of humans (hence my last comment), which is contradictory in itself since many of them consider humans to be a type of animal and further claim that animals should have rights equal to that of humans.
I myself believe in a hierarchy in my moral values that underlies all my decisions. A practical example: I follow the ethical requirement not to kill, but I would take part in the Stauffenberg assassination immediately and without question. There's also a similar tension between reality and conscience in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn." On the one hand, Huck Finn criticizes himself for having stolen her property (the slave) from the widow; on the other hand, he feels he has a moral duty to the slave Jim. I want to say that if the public cultural morality is perverse, one should not follow this but one's own perceived morality and thus be considered publicly "immoral". It is objectively true that eating poison will shorten or end a person's life. No minds are needed for that, it's a fact. Whether that's 'good' or 'bad' requires a mind to evaluate the actors involved and the outcomes and whether these things conform to their own personal subjective moral goals. Is it wrong to lie? It is not a yes or no question because "wrong" is a subjective concept depending on circumstances. Dogmatically accepting that things are right or wrong based on what someone else told you or wrote down in a book can lead you to suspend your own reason. Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.
I guess it is hard to trust people in comments sections on TH-cam, we are all just faceless, repliers. Sometimes though people do say what they mean and are genuine.
The philosophical arguments are useless imo. They only serve to make those that already believe feel a little more secure/ less silly about their beliefs.
There are MANY arguments that disprove atheism, but I believe I know of one this channel has not covered. I would be happy to share this argument here if anyone is interested...
@@7johnz The Argument from Pantheism Premise 1. The Pantheistic God is equivalent to The Universe Premise 2. The Universe exists Conclusion: Therefore the God of Pantheism exists
@@CarlFink "arbitrarily redefining words" oh you mean how you lacktheists attempt to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" when in fact atheism has historically been defined as *the belief that there are no gods* FYI Pantheism has existed for thousands of years and in fact predates Christianity itself. Nice try tho lacktheist
@@CarlFink I haven't "shifted" anything. Meanwhile you haven't even attempted to refute the argument I presented, probably because you recognize the fact that it is a sound argument that you cannot refute.
1:00 I would say it's not because there is a purpose, but it's because of God. Since God is the Perfect Good and he created us in his image, we know what good is. and since evil is the opposite of good and it goes against God's nature, we know that evil is not how the world ought to be.
When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
@@trumpbellend6717 Yes. Made in God's image means he created us with intrinsic value. I can see that you're an atheist because ironically only atheist hate and judge God. and so as an atheist you have no standard of morality other than your opinion, or your society's opinion. Even if everyone in the world had the same opinion, without a standard, it would still be just an opinion.
@@BerishaFatian // "As a atheist you have no standard of morality other than your opinion" // 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@BerishaFatianyou have no moral standard and the biggest problem is Christians can't judge god. So you believe slavery and stoning gays and girls who can't prove their virginity based on the hymen/blood myth (something a creator god should know!) etc. are moral. You have to if you want to claim absolute/objective morality and your god being the standard.
@@elgatofelix8917 HAHAA that's funny. No, I follow Christ and I believe morality is objective and transcendent. I just wish I had an actual reason to believe such a thing. Most of these arguments are conditional arguments on morality being true and don't even provide substance for objective morality. The best I got is "We act as though morality exists." but that isn't much of an argument.
@@alexandersideras5099 I don't understand. The Christian believes what God says is good is good, and what God says is evil, is evil. The Ten Commandments didn't need 1,000 proofs as to why we should obey them.
@@johnsaxon5154 The question is simply "Can I fundamentally come to the conclusion that morality exists without the bible in order to prove theism to be true." This has nothing to do with the case of God initially, we can't express a theistic interpretation of the evidence when the fundamental given in the argument is disregarded to atheism. So if we prove morality to be true, it is much more difficult for the atheist to refute.
@@alexandersideras5099 Well we can't express a theistic interpretation of the evidence because the atheist denies the supernatural. They don't even believe in any God lol.
The moral argument from morsels for God’s existence: If morsels exist, then food exists If food exists, then gluttony as a vice exists Vices such as gluttony are more likely to exist under theism than naturalism Therefore God exists
So hes shoveling the driveway because its "divine command" and not because he loves and cares for his wife? why go with these far-fetched conclusions when the answers are right in your face? can someone clarify?
That response assumes that being required to do x and loving x are the same thing. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes people don’t actually love others, they feel anger hatred and spite, yet they are morally obligated and required to act in certain ways regardless.
@@EragonAnimator You do know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders, rapes, abortions, drug use, single parents, even wealth and health America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita anywhere in the world 🤔🤔🤔 it also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories. Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. Hmmm.🤔🤔🤔 For example one of many ........ *"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*
First, the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Second, even if those studies showed what you think they do ( and there are many multi-variant issues that suggest they don’t). It wouldn’t prove that morality does not depend upon God. What it would show was that religious *belief* does not reduce *criminality*. But the fact a person can refrain from crime without *believing* in God does not show that moral requirements could exist (and have the authority we ascribe to them) independently of God’s commands. Whether or not God exists and stands in a certain type of dependence relationship to moral requirement s has nothing to do with wether people believe he exists and nothing to do with wether they act in accord with those requirements. Like I said, dogmatically asserting stuff, with unwarranted confidence doesn’t prove anything. What would be needed was some argument either that a divine command theory is not a satisfactory meta-ethical theory or an argument that some secular theory provides a more satisfactory explanation. That requires the actual work involved in making that case.
So you have provided many arguments in the video, which I could go into now but I choose to pick me a few arguments out. Nevertheless, many of these arguments would have the same problems. First of all I think the arguments are consistent in themselves and build on each other in the order shown. But I don’t think you’re really explain why God should be the best explanation for some arguments given. Example: 5:21 Here you say that the best explanation for universally shared morals is God, without explaining why you think it's the best. I don’t agree with this, since people from Asia and Europe don’t differ really genetically, so why shouldn’t they have behaviors and same psychology? They think alike, because they are all humans, and so they judge punishments and moral ideas the same way. Another point for me would be, that you argue with good and evil without explaining what good and evil is for you. What should good and evil mean on a cosmic scale? Good is only what is good for man and that one would not sacrifice oneself for others is also easily refutable, because the survival of others ensures the survival of the species, so it is advantageous evolutionary, so it is still good for man, who would only sacrifice himself, because he subconsciously pursues the pre-programmed goal of the conservation of his species.
@@barry.anderberg correct, the OP claims that the argument states that God is the ONLY explanation when in fact the argument actually states that God is the BEST explanation. Strawman fallacy
@@elgatofelix8917 ok I was a bit harsh on that. I'll correct it, thanks. I wanted to say, that they go with it that it is the best explanation, without explaining why. I think to say, that humans in general think more equal in morals, because they have shared psychology is as good for a explanation if god is behind it.
@@artificial_artistI can't speak for them but if I had to guess, I think the reason they say it is the best is because God seems to be the simplest explanation. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "shared psychology"; are you referring to the Jungian concept of " collective unconscious " ?
@@elgatofelix8917 With "shared psychology" I meant, that humans have patterns in which they think, which we have all in common. Language, fears, social behavior and then I would also say how we judge certain situations and crimes and how to deal with them so that psychology is foundational the same with every human, so that some morals are actually build in our human consciousness. I think when you formulate it so: "Humans have same morals, because they think foundationaly the same". It is also a simple explanation as "God created morals universally for all humans"
@@pavld335 no not at all. The idea that objective morals come from a human source is irrational. Morality is a rational enterprise and for naturalists they try to come to the conclusion that our objective morality comes from a purely evolutionary or societal construct. The problem with this is that human beings do not all agree on these morals nor do they do right by their own morals. So it is irrational to conclude that universally objective morals can come from human beings in societies that fail to agree and live up to those morals. So if Morality is a rational enterprise and human beings clearly cannot be the source for these objective morals then it follows that morality has to come from a rational mind, wholly good, and necessary being. That being is what we call God.
@@UncensoredChristian so objective morality doesn't exist. Morality is negotiable and is based on our survial and reason. Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean there's some ultimate moral judge. This is circular reasoning. There's no evidence of a god, and the god of the bible is clearly immoral. If the god of the bible commits horrific autorcities, then god isn't a objective moral rule maker and that makes the Christian god false.
Transcendent morals are useful for constructing society. If people just care about their own personal welfare, and satisfactions, infringing on another persons happiness for your own, wouldn't be morally wrong. It would be considered rationally objective. Its a survival of the fittest kind of approach. If morals can transcend your own personal sense of good, than the human hive is aloud to have peak survival conditions. However, this would imply that multiple people have transcendent objective morality. However, this objective morality isnt the best way to procreate our species. The best way as of now is creating humans in labs or mandatory procreation laws. This concept is morally bankrupt. We seem to be concerned with an objective morality in society. If morality is objective than god has to exist. If morality is just a construct to allow society to be functional than morality could be subjective. There is also another element that can be considered. Can a conciousness feel guilty when they inflict pain or do wrong to someone else, even if its beneficial for the inflictor? Also, if objective morality is false than we have to say the empathetic, just have over active imaginations. There is a morality that is societal but can this morality be objective? If god exists, it can and if not, we will never be able to prove that morals are not just subjective
If god exists then how does that make morality objective? I often hear Christians claim you 'need' god for objective morality but if the moral standard is subject to a mind (gods) then by definition its subjective.
@@j7bsecond540 The question that you asked is a very complex subject but I will attempt to answer it. Jordan Peterson, basically thinks that the values and morals of Judaism/christian religion heavily influenced societies functionally today. The idea of god gives people of society a way to borrow an objective reality by pulling it from the ether. With out this idea of an objective something that holds the ultimate moral goodness the framework of transcendent morals can't exist. Willam lane Craig seems to think, that if we don't have an objective frame of reference for morals, ie god, than all morals are subjective. This makes sense if you think about it. If enslavement brings you and your family a better life than ilthe reward reaped from the slavery is morally fine. Normally in the animal world, it is survival of the fittest. This behavior is a natural survival mechanism and with out objective morality, there is nothing the person is doing wrong. Also since he is just cells, he can't even be held accountable because conciousness is just another illusion. The idea of god is he is unable to sin, he is ultimately good and unlimited good. The highest conceivable amount of possible good. An objective good, with ultimate moral law. So when, conceptualizing this idea, you need to think as good as good can be. For example, god doesn't want us to lie but for us regular people lying is incredibly useful for a variety of situations. Since gods mind will never change in the situation of a lie, he holds stead his idea of an objective truth. While, our idea is actually subjective since our minds change based on the case. We might consider a lie bad but when it is useful, we do it any way. In this way, peoples morality is prone to failure. However, god will never treat this as subjective.. its objective for god.
@@radmcbad1576 no, whether or not I benefit from slavery it is still morally wrong. The imposition of will, reducing wellbeing, society has agreed/learned that these things are 'wrong' The belief in god leads to less moral behaviour. Especially when the moral system is primitive, bronze age tribal nonesense
@@j7bsecond540 your idea of morality is quite literally a Christian construct. This social construct is subjective and prone to change. Christians quite literally fought to remove slavery. As far as belief in god leading people to immoral behavior, i can say the same exact thing about atheism, Joseph stalin was no sweet heart, have you ever read the gulag archipelago? He was responsible, for over one hundred million deaths with his militant atheism.
*Moral Arguments*
44 00:16 Generic Argument from the Objectivity of Morality
45 00:39 Abductive Argument from the Objectivity of Morality
46 01:18 The Normative Implications of Evil
47 02:12 Evil as Privation of Good
48 03:18 Horrendous Evils
49 04:53 Universal Moral Beliefs
50 05:52 Sidgwick and Kant
51 06:48 A Kantian Argument from Adams
52 09:06 Oderberg on Cosmic Justice
53 10:27 Layman’s Moral Argument
54 12:12 The Need for Divine Aid in Being Moral
55 14:24 The Moral Gap
56 15:52 Duty to Promote the Highest Good
57 16:49 Objective Obligations and Duties
58 18:41 Argument from Conscience
59 20:22 The Intrinsic Harmfulness of Wrongdoing
60 21:52 Moral Knowledge
61 23:16 Apprehension of Objective Norms
62 23:58 Altruism: Schloss
63 25:00 Altruism: Pruss
Thank you! Much appreciated 🙇🙏🙇
Not impressed. Presuppositional apologetics is never impressive if one isn’t already a believer.
@@oliverhug3 As a believer, I concur.
@@oliverhug3 Can you provide an argument for Naturalism / Atheism that isn't presuppositional?
Both are universal negative fallacies (as they claim God or the supernatural don't exist. It would be required to be all-knowing to know either).
I really don't see how these are in any way impressive. One of the main premises shared by many of these arguments is that humans have a sense of good and evil which can be seen in their reactions to goodness or abhorrent evil.
That, however, is not something mysterious which points at a supernatural being. It is quite normal. We are mostly horrified and disgusted by such things that adversely impact lives, safety, and well-being in general. That is because it is in our very nature and our best interest to live, be safe, and be well. When we see crimes committed against the well-being of others, especially our loved ones, who give us pleasure, we feel empathy. We feel empathy because our mind mirrors what we observe and puts ourselves in the position of things that we see, including bad things. Since we mentally put ourselves into a bad position, and deal with the implication of being impacted by such "evil" ourselves, we dislike and condemn it. That is why we eventually decide that it is evil.
Needless to say, things that we think are evil are mostly dysfunctional from the perspective of an ideal observer.
What we see here is that our perception of evil is functional. This does not, in any way, lead to God, unless we disregard our knowledge of sociology, history, psychology, and neuroscience; and wilfully leave everything to faith.
If morality means simply whatever promotes human well being, then okay. Is that your view? If so can you argue for that view? How does eugenics, for example, play into that view?
@@barry.anderberg animal rights activists and vegans (many of whom are atheist) would have a massive disagreement with the premise that morality is whatever promotes human well being. The irony of that just amuses me 😂
@@elgatofelix8917 The well-being of a human is for every human different. To respond to your example, animal activists just relate to the animals as if it’s a human and think about how they would feel about their situation and so have a feeling of justice about it and want to change their situation to the better so they can also feel better and improve therefore their well-being.
@@barry.anderberg I'm not making a claim that certain things are good or bad but merely describing how people come to the conclusions of good and evil. Eugenics, like euthanasia, is indeed a good example to understand that morality is not simply objective but more dependent on people's perception of how things affect them.
@@artificial_artist actually they usually prioritize the well being of animals above that of humans (hence my last comment), which is contradictory in itself since many of them consider humans to be a type of animal and further claim that animals should have rights equal to that of humans.
I'm afraid that these didn't come off as convincing at all. They seemed like rather irrational leaps in logic to me.
Should have tried doing 10 pushups every time an unjustified or false premise was presented. I bet you can't do that many though.
I myself believe in a hierarchy in my moral values that underlies all my decisions.
A practical example:
I follow the ethical requirement not to kill, but I would take part in the Stauffenberg assassination immediately and without question.
There's also a similar tension between reality and conscience in Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn." On the one hand, Huck Finn criticizes himself for having stolen her property (the slave) from the widow; on the other hand, he feels he has a moral duty to the slave Jim.
I want to say that if the public cultural morality is perverse, one should not follow this but one's own perceived morality and thus be considered publicly "immoral".
It is objectively true that eating poison will shorten or end a person's life. No minds are needed for that, it's a fact. Whether that's 'good' or 'bad' requires a mind to evaluate the actors involved and the outcomes and whether these things conform to their own personal subjective moral goals. Is it wrong to lie? It is not a yes or no question because "wrong" is a subjective concept depending on circumstances.
Dogmatically accepting that things are right or wrong based on what someone else told you or wrote down in a book can lead you to suspend your own reason.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.
It’s taking the Holy Spirit to make me do my quiet time before watching this video. Can’t wait to watch
You're gonna need a lot of holy spirits to find any of this convincing! 😉
@@Apanblod what do you mean by that sir?
Happy to be here
None of these seem terribly convincing tbh.
I'm not convinced that you're not convinced.
@@jaim0368 How come?
I guess it is hard to trust people in comments sections on TH-cam, we are all just faceless, repliers. Sometimes though people do say what they mean and are genuine.
The philosophical arguments are useless imo.
They only serve to make those that already believe feel a little more secure/ less silly about their beliefs.
@@jaim0368 Maybe instead of quippy comebacks it might be better to ask why they don't find them convincing?
There are MANY arguments that disprove atheism, but I believe I know of one this channel has not covered.
I would be happy to share this argument here if anyone is interested...
please do
@@7johnz The Argument from Pantheism
Premise 1. The Pantheistic God is equivalent to The Universe
Premise 2. The Universe exists
Conclusion: Therefore the God of Pantheism exists
@@7johnz addendum - secondary conclusion: thus atheism is false
@@CarlFink "arbitrarily redefining words" oh you mean how you lacktheists attempt to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" when in fact atheism has historically been defined as *the belief that there are no gods*
FYI Pantheism has existed for thousands of years and in fact predates Christianity itself. Nice try tho lacktheist
@@CarlFink I haven't "shifted" anything. Meanwhile you haven't even attempted to refute the argument I presented, probably because you recognize the fact that it is a sound argument that you cannot refute.
1:00 I would say it's not because there is a purpose, but it's because of God. Since God is the Perfect Good and he created us in his image, we know what good is. and since evil is the opposite of good and it goes against God's nature, we know that evil is not how the world ought to be.
When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
@@trumpbellend6717
Yes. Made in God's image means he created us with intrinsic value.
I can see that you're an atheist because ironically only atheist hate and judge God. and so as an atheist you have no standard of morality other than your opinion, or your society's opinion. Even if everyone in the world had the same opinion, without a standard, it would still be just an opinion.
@@BerishaFatian
// "As a atheist you have no standard of morality other than your opinion" //
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@BerishaFatianyou have no moral standard and the biggest problem is Christians can't judge god.
So you believe slavery and stoning gays and girls who can't prove their virginity based on the hymen/blood myth (something a creator god should know!) etc. are moral.
You have to if you want to claim absolute/objective morality and your god being the standard.
Hey brother Cameron, do you edit your videos? If so, can I ask what software you use
This type of arguments(moral arguments) are strongests in my opinion.
Nonsense, a "God" is most certainly NOT required for morality.
I was really hoping for more morality arguments! Thanks so much. I wish that we had more reason to believe morality is true.
Are you a moral nihilist?
@@elgatofelix8917 HAHAA that's funny. No, I follow Christ and I believe morality is objective and transcendent. I just wish I had an actual reason to believe such a thing. Most of these arguments are conditional arguments on morality being true and don't even provide substance for objective morality. The best I got is "We act as though morality exists." but that isn't much of an argument.
@@alexandersideras5099 I don't understand. The Christian believes what God says is good is good, and what God says is evil, is evil. The Ten Commandments didn't need 1,000 proofs as to why we should obey them.
@@johnsaxon5154 The question is simply "Can I fundamentally come to the conclusion that morality exists without the bible in order to prove theism to be true." This has nothing to do with the case of God initially, we can't express a theistic interpretation of the evidence when the fundamental given in the argument is disregarded to atheism. So if we prove morality to be true, it is much more difficult for the atheist to refute.
@@alexandersideras5099 Well we can't express a theistic interpretation of the evidence because the atheist denies the supernatural. They don't even believe in any God lol.
The moral argument from morsels for God’s existence:
If morsels exist, then food exists
If food exists, then gluttony as a vice exists
Vices such as gluttony are more likely to exist under theism than naturalism
Therefore God exists
That's quite a statement. How is gluttony more likely under theism than naturalism?
So hes shoveling the driveway because its "divine command" and not because he loves and cares for his wife? why go with these far-fetched conclusions when the answers are right in your face? can someone clarify?
That response assumes that being required to do x and loving x are the same thing. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes people don’t actually love others, they feel anger hatred and spite, yet they are morally obligated and required to act in certain ways regardless.
@@EragonAnimator Regardles a "God" is most certainly NOT required for morality.
@@trumpbellend6717 unfortunately simply dogmatically asserting something with unearned or unwarranted confidence doesnt make it it true.
@@EragonAnimator You do know that there have been many studies to assess the religiosity of societies in comparison with their number of murders, rapes, abortions, drug use, single parents, even wealth and health
America dispite being one of the most christian countries in the world has the HIGHEST murder rate per capita anywhere in the world 🤔🤔🤔
it also has amongst the worst results in many of the above categories.
Yet those we regard as the most atheistic secular ( the Scandinavian, sweden ect) score much much better and are amongst the best in those same categories. Hmmm.🤔🤔🤔
For example one of many ........
*"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"*
First, the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world are Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Second, even if those studies showed what you think they do ( and there are many multi-variant issues that suggest they don’t). It wouldn’t prove that morality does not depend upon God. What it would show was that religious *belief* does not reduce *criminality*. But the fact a person can refrain from crime without *believing* in God does not show that moral requirements could exist (and have the authority we ascribe to them) independently of God’s commands. Whether or not God exists and stands in a certain type of dependence relationship to moral requirement
s has nothing to do with wether people believe he exists and nothing to do with wether they act in accord with those requirements.
Like I said, dogmatically asserting stuff, with unwarranted confidence doesn’t prove anything. What would be needed was some argument either that a divine command theory is not a satisfactory meta-ethical theory or an argument that some secular theory provides a more satisfactory explanation. That requires the actual work involved in making that case.
Great video :)
So you have provided many arguments in the video, which I could go into now but I choose to pick me a few arguments out.
Nevertheless, many of these arguments would have the same problems.
First of all I think the arguments are consistent in themselves and build on each other in the order shown.
But I don’t think you’re really explain why God should be the best explanation for some arguments given.
Example: 5:21
Here you say that the best explanation for universally shared morals is God, without explaining why you think it's the best. I don’t agree with this, since people from Asia and Europe don’t differ really genetically, so why shouldn’t they have behaviors and same psychology? They think alike, because they are all humans, and so they judge punishments and moral ideas the same way.
Another point for me would be, that you argue with good and evil without explaining what good and evil is for you. What should good and evil mean on a cosmic scale? Good is only what is good for man and that one would not sacrifice oneself for others is also easily refutable, because the survival of others ensures the survival of the species, so it is advantageous evolutionary, so it is still good for man, who would only sacrifice himself, because he subconsciously pursues the pre-programmed goal of the conservation of his species.
You should re-watch that section since you're incorrectly characterizing the view.
@@barry.anderberg correct, the OP claims that the argument states that God is the ONLY explanation when in fact the argument actually states that God is the BEST explanation. Strawman fallacy
@@elgatofelix8917 ok I was a bit harsh on that. I'll correct it, thanks.
I wanted to say, that they go with it that it is the best explanation, without explaining why. I think to say, that humans in general think more equal in morals, because they have shared psychology is as good for a explanation if god is behind it.
@@artificial_artistI can't speak for them but if I had to guess, I think the reason they say it is the best is because God seems to be the simplest explanation. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "shared psychology"; are you referring to the Jungian concept of " collective unconscious " ?
@@elgatofelix8917 With "shared psychology" I meant, that humans have patterns in which they think, which we have all in common. Language, fears, social behavior and then I would also say how we judge certain situations and crimes and how to deal with them so that psychology is foundational the same with every human, so that some morals are actually build in our human consciousness.
I think when you formulate it so:
"Humans have same morals, because they think foundationaly the same". It is also a simple explanation as "God created morals universally for all humans"
Love the moral argument!
What do you like about it?
@@pavld335It shows that it is irrational to conclude that objective morality comes from a human source.
@@UncensoredChristian so because someone couldn't demonstrate something to you, you decided that something else is true?
@@pavld335 no not at all. The idea that objective morals come from a human source is irrational. Morality is a rational enterprise and for naturalists they try to come to the conclusion that our objective morality comes from a purely evolutionary or societal construct. The problem with this is that human beings do not all agree on these morals nor do they do right by their own morals. So it is irrational to conclude that universally objective morals can come from human beings in societies that fail to agree and live up to those morals.
So if Morality is a rational enterprise and human beings clearly cannot be the source for these objective morals then it follows that morality has to come from a rational mind, wholly good, and necessary being. That being is what we call God.
@@UncensoredChristian so objective morality doesn't exist. Morality is negotiable and is based on our survial and reason. Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean there's some ultimate moral judge. This is circular reasoning. There's no evidence of a god, and the god of the bible is clearly immoral. If the god of the bible commits horrific autorcities, then god isn't a objective moral rule maker and that makes the Christian god false.
I haven't been this early since atheism was still the belief that God does not exist
Haha, take that Digital Gnosis and James Fodor! 😉
Yeah 19 is definitely greater than 500!
@@saiormalik3211 Quality>Quantity... but anyway my comment was a joke :)
Transcendent morals are useful for constructing society. If people just care about their own personal welfare, and satisfactions, infringing on another persons happiness for your own, wouldn't be morally wrong. It would be considered rationally objective.
Its a survival of the fittest kind of approach. If morals can transcend your own personal sense of good, than the human hive is aloud to have peak survival conditions. However, this would imply that multiple people have transcendent objective morality.
However, this objective morality isnt the best way to procreate our species. The best way as of now is creating humans in labs or mandatory procreation laws. This concept is morally bankrupt.
We seem to be concerned with an objective morality in society. If morality is objective than god has to exist. If morality is just a construct to allow society to be functional than morality could be subjective. There is also another element that can be considered. Can a conciousness feel guilty when they inflict pain or do wrong to someone else, even if its beneficial for the inflictor?
Also, if objective morality is false than we have to say the empathetic, just have over active imaginations. There is a morality that is societal but can this morality be objective? If god exists, it can and if not, we will never be able to prove that morals are not just subjective
If god exists then how does that make morality objective?
I often hear Christians claim you 'need' god for objective morality but if the moral standard is subject to a mind (gods) then by definition its subjective.
@@j7bsecond540 The question that you asked is a very complex subject but I will attempt to answer it.
Jordan Peterson, basically thinks that the values and morals of Judaism/christian religion heavily influenced societies functionally today. The idea of god gives people of society a way to borrow an objective reality by pulling it from the ether. With out this idea of an objective something that holds the ultimate moral goodness the framework of transcendent morals can't exist.
Willam lane Craig seems to think, that if we don't have an objective frame of reference for morals, ie god, than all morals are subjective.
This makes sense if you think about it. If enslavement brings you and your family a better life than ilthe reward reaped from the slavery is morally fine. Normally in the animal world, it is survival of the fittest. This behavior is a natural survival mechanism and with out objective morality, there is nothing the person is doing wrong. Also since he is just cells, he can't even be held accountable because conciousness is just another illusion.
The idea of god is he is unable to sin, he is ultimately good and unlimited good. The highest conceivable amount of possible good. An objective good, with ultimate moral law. So when, conceptualizing this idea, you need to think as good as good can be.
For example, god doesn't want us to lie but for us regular people lying is incredibly useful for a variety of situations. Since gods mind will never change in the situation of a lie, he holds stead his idea of an objective truth. While, our idea is actually subjective since our minds change based on the case. We might consider a lie bad but when it is useful, we do it any way. In this way, peoples morality is prone to failure. However, god will never treat this as subjective.. its objective for god.
@@radmcbad1576 no, whether or not I benefit from slavery it is still morally wrong.
The imposition of will, reducing wellbeing, society has agreed/learned that these things are 'wrong'
The belief in god leads to less moral behaviour.
Especially when the moral system is primitive, bronze age tribal nonesense
@@j7bsecond540 your idea of morality is quite literally a Christian construct. This social construct is subjective and prone to change. Christians quite literally fought to remove slavery.
As far as belief in god leading people to immoral behavior, i can say the same exact thing about atheism, Joseph stalin was no sweet heart, have you ever read the gulag archipelago? He was responsible, for over one hundred million deaths with his militant atheism.
@@radmcbad1576 his 'atheism' wasn't why he killed.
Slavery is endorsed by the bible - go figure
The defence of slavery was biblical
Şuraya bi türkçe çeviri şart
Coming early to comments and not knowing anything to comment :/
God bless you all anyways 😂❤
It's OK, you've helped the algorithm 👍😇🙌🙏
Last time I was this early it was still "only 2 weeks to flatten muh curve"
Turkish subs pls.