What is the BEST Moral Argument for God?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- In this joint interview, I'm joined by Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. David Baggett to discuss the merits of different versions of the moral argument for God's existence.
To participate in the class that Dr. Craig and Dr. Baggett are teaching on the moral argument at HBU: hbu.edu/school-of-christian-thought/hts-go-deeper/
Description of class: Come study the moral argument for God with Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. David Baggett. This is a two-week intensive course, meeting Mondays through Fridays, 3:00-5:00 PM, May 17-28, 2021. The course will meet on campus and remotely via Zoom. Anyone in the world can sign up to audit this class!
$280 Early Bird, $300 after the class begins
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on TH-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#MoralArgument #Apologetics #WilliamLaneCraig
WLC has led me to the more intellectual side of Christianity, convinced me to read the Bible, and helped secure my faith. Praise the lord and his vessels!
Hallelujah!
@@Unconskep post a link and explain exactly when how and why he got "embarrassed"
I thought WLC had much better arguments and rebuttals than Price. Regarding the Carroll debate, he (Carroll) was deliberately deceptive in using the Guth stunt, and there are respected cosmologists who support both sides of that debate; watch Wall and Barnes on capturing Christianity discuss the WLC- Carroll debate.
You’re not too old to explain yourself. You’re just being lazy and prejudiced.
@@Unconskep OK boomer
Dr. Baggett deserves so much more love then he gets. What a humble a guy.
He really is. He was my professor back at Liberty University and he's just an incredibly gracious man.
i know, right?! it's not fair. i think part of the problem is his name. because it rhymes with a word that is hilarious but bad. i think cameron bertuzzi in fact might be that word.
It's really wholesome watching two world-class philosophers gushing over each other 😂😂
please don't make it sexual. please be tasteful. jesus loves you.
Im pretty sure Adrian didnt mean for it to be sexual. It was you who construed it in that manner.
@@meandtheboys3614 lol
This is one of the better podcasts I’ve seen from this channel, thank you.
Could we have a library tour of WLC. I think that would be great to know what books he is keeping.
would be funny if we found adult magazines among his books. or 1960s "special" polaroids of his wife, jan. dr william elaine greg just seems a little fun and freaky.
As a former student of Dr. Baggett (when he was at Liberty), and an admirer of Craig, hoping to one day be able to speak with him, I am very excited for this dialogue.
What incredibly rich and wonderful conversation this was!!
I got to say Cameron is really good at making the same face with the same pose in his thumbnails
LOL
wow you watch him closely. you must be gay. you must fantasize about him. that's cool. jesus loves you.
For any liberals, lgbtq’s, democrats, or feminists, LOOK UP LEVITICUS 18:22
A law that didn't come from a deity, in all probability. I am not sure how that is to be of any use to anyone. For any fundamentalist Christians, LOOK UP CRITICAL THOUGHT
just here for that intro music!
We need to get that on loop somehow.
Bruh 😂😂😂
Mah man 🤝
@@philosophyjunkies6693 it is on loop, and it's cringe worthy
@@CarlFink I would argue the strongest aspect of Capturing Christianity is its ability to draw in so many atheists and anti-Christians who claim that Christianity is so ridiculous and yet they spend and devote so much time to following this work. Fascinating. If I don't find something compelling do you know how much time and energy I spend on viewing the content and placing my thoughts on the discussion boards? Hint if you multiply that amount of time by any number you come up with zero
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. Religious people can be moral, but their model simply can't explain why anything is right or wrong.
Care to prove what you assert?
@@nics4967 I can provide evidence and reasoning, sure. Which assertion?
WLC has a very soothing voice.
stop making homo-erotic remarks. jesus loves you
He has also got one of those smarmy faces that just needs punching.
I'm a master's student in Christian Apologetics at Liberty University. I'm so sad because when I finally get to the point to write my thesis about a moral argument (inspired in WLC and Baggett's work), Dr. Baggett is not teaching at LU anymore...
I would have found it sadder to be writing a thesis for a proposition that is patently absurd. The moral argument for god is one of the weakest there is. You see in reality the percieved whims if anyone's god are irrelovent in any discussion of morality.
@@trumpbellend6717 I understand why it seems sad to you... Not everyone is open to see how moral phenomenon need explanation. For this reading Moral Anti-realism and moral skepticism is the easiest option for many people. Thank you for your comment.
@@apologetas_yt lol we HAVE an explanation for "moral phenomena" and it has nothing to do with any God.
"Good" is a word used to describe a point on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
@@apologetas_yt _"moral anti- realism and moral skeptism is the easiest way for many people"_
*NO* the inserting of the percieved whims of subjective invisible guardians into every moral question is the "EASY WAY" for theists
@@simplerstrength Humanity and society's as a whole can and do agree on a vast array of moral issues that have wellbeing at the heart. These are reflected in our laws murder rape theft ect are standard throughout societies (even secular ) For the most part it's is only with respect to the concept of SIN ( percieved transgressions against the whims of subjective gods ) that the disagreement occur.
For me and like minded people the moral grounding for morality is based upon our values, Wellbeing, empathy, respect, equality altruism, "THE Golden Rule" We try to actualize a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon said values that is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, this is our "reference point" or standard. People are treated as you yourself would like to be treated. Hence we have our "oughts" for example..... One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen.
One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a framework of subjective values.
Values are socially approved desires and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations. They are a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness
So as stated previously for me and like minded people "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values. Whilst your "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of your "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
*Tell me dear what do you base YOUR morality on* ???
I didn't see this video until too late. Wish I could've taken the class. I wish there had been better advertising for it, and I hope WLC & David Baggett teach it again.
Hi, it may not be too late; e-mail me at dbaggett@hbu.edu.
@@davidbaggett6005 Oh, wow! Thank you, Dr. Baggett, for checking the comment section.
I don't live anywhere near Houston. However, I would love to take the class online or even just prerecorded lectures by you & dr. William lane Craig if possible. I will email you later this afternoon. Thank you again!
If there are objective moral from a god, why he is not able to unveil them unmistakable?
He is, anything that we have contention over is only a conflict of objective morals
The best argument IMO from morality is that true morality requires that we hold that other people have intrinsic human value that exists even if it goes against any utilitarian outcome. It has nothing to do with reward and punishment. You could believe that there is not any punishment for people who are immoral nor reward for people who are, and still hold to a moral argument. a) Humans have intrinsic human value. b) Intrinsic human value by definition must persist independent of ANY utilitarian benefit. If not, it's not intrinsic but derived from society. 3) Intrinsic human value is not derivable from logical argument or materialistic investigation. By definition it must be metaphysical and have a metaphysical source. This is because a person's intrinsic value can not be contingent on the materialistic provability of it's existence.
you just wasted your breath
Yay, my favorites, Dr. David Baggett (lol) and Dr. William Elaine Greg!
And the great and legendary Cameron Bertuzzi!
Also loved the math debate with the brilliant Australian, Dr. Gramma Pee.
Dr. WLC is a very busy man. Makes one wonder how much he charges to appear on programs like this
he probably likes what cameron is doing so for free i'd imagine
Reaching to a younger audience and mentoring a new generation of apologetics is far more important than money.
Keep in mind he's getting to plug his apologetics class with exactly the audience that would be interested. It's a win win
He’s never charged to be on my channel.
@@CapturingChristianity wow you're very privileged. I doubt he would give any of us the same courtesy. He won't even give a quick response to any of the emails sent him. It seems one must have at least a few thousand followers on social media for Craig to even acknowledge one's existence - CoSmiC SkEpTiC for example
David Baggett: It's mine gosh dang it!
Craig: Weeellll
Don't recall that exchange.
@@davidbaggett6005 Hahaha I was kidding of course :)
@@plantingasbulldog2009 My memory's not what it used to be, so you had me worried! :)
@@davidbaggett6005 Hahaha neither mine so who knows? :D
I have to warn you boys. You are going to have to lie down after I make this statement as it may cause dizziness because it is a looping fail. Ready? In order to discuss or debate whether or not something exists, you first have to know exactly what that thing is so you can announce at the end of the discussion or debate either: "And therefore, the thing we are debating exists" or "And therefore, the thing we are debating does not exist." In other words, in order to debate the existence of something, you first have to know what you're talking about, or, you have to know what it is - but if you know what it is, then you know it exists and therefore, there is no debate. This is why you do not debate existence. It is a logical fail. A looping, logical fail. Existence must be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction through common ways of knowing, and failing to do this, the only correct conclusion is: This ostensible thing is not known to our present knowing to exist. You do not debate things into or out of existence. The only things that can be known to exist must lie within the phenomenal plane. They have to have objective handles that make a thing stand apart from everything else that it can be discerned apart from everything else for what it is specifically and therein, how it differs from everything else so it can be described, known, and categorized. If what is being proposed is submitted to exist outside the phenomenal plane then there is no discussion nor debate possible as we have no access to any plane aside from the phenomenal given our relativity-bound form of consciousness, thus rendering any such discussion or debate wholly hypothetical with no conclusion possible. Charlatans like you three have been spinning your wheels and spinning your rhetoric for centuries on end wasting everyone's time with these endlessly looping, rhetorical debates. And you get away with it because the mean consciousness of this planet is that of a six year old child. You men are fantastically ignorant. Complete frauds. You know nothing. Anyone can make any claim as to what god is and how it functions and no one can prove anyone right or wrong. Think about that one for the next 72 years. You may just figure it out. But I doubt it.
I’m curious. You seem to profess that they know nothing. What about you then? What is it that you know?
I presently hold to a quantum-mechanical view and understanding of life and the universe as promulgated and advanced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who proposed that everything extant is consciousness expressing through form and energy - ergo - everything is the same thing in differing formats/modes of expression - ergo - there is no fundamental distinction between anything - ergo - all is one - separation in is an illusion. Mankind is completely deluded in his exoteric proferrings that separate and segregate - especially based on a supposed worthiness before some invented supernatural source/power. Theism is utter blindness and ignorance. It is the epitomization of separation - separation from some imagined eternal source along with terminal distinctions based on worthiness before that ostensible source. But it is not so much what I know. It is what these men do not know yet pretend to know and that misleads and destroys as far as the social fabric and the earth logos goes. They are frauds. Charlatans. Salesmen without a clue. Everything they emit is false as it derives from a central lie. That there exists a known and knowable commodity they refer to as a god. It's not just a matter of intelligence, but of sanity. These men are insane. That is why and how they know nothing. They cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. If you are a theist, then you are insane. I'm certain all that I said went way over your head and you are about to secrete a wholly ignorant retort. Christians are inherently stupid. You are playing make believe and not only do you not see it, but you can't understand it when it is explained to you. That's epic stupidity. These men are epically stupid creatures.@@leahcimmmm
@@mypublicchannel3884 Alright. I shall present no retort, nor any further responses. I am a follower of Christ. Even if I were somehow able to present a completely sensical and logical retort, it would seem that you would, in the end, just unfortunately chalk up my retort as a manifestation of the “theistic stupidity” that you seem to believe is apparent in theists. I do not know the complete truth, and even if I were somehow able to know it and be able to present it to you, you’d inevitably see my presentation as the ramblings of a deluded fool. Therefore there is no use for further retorts and responses.
To be completely honest with you, I saw you as someone with opposing views to mine so I was hoping that perhaps I would be able to learn a thing or two about your views and understanding of the world. It would seem to me that I am however, unwelcome here. I am sorry for bothering you.
No matter. Take care out there.
@My public channel , you say -
"The only things that can be known to exist must lie within the phenomenal plane. They have to have objective handles that make a thing stand apart from everything else that it can be discerned apart from everything else for what it is specifically and therein, how it differs from everything else so it can be described, known, and categorized. If what is being proposed is submitted to exist outside the phenomenal plane then there is no discussion nor debate possible..."
I am curious, does this metaphysical principle lie within the phenomenal plane? If yes, how so? If no, then we can readily discard it according to its own standard.
Perhaps we should define what you mean by "phenomenal plane" because phenomena is usually taken to mean anything that is perceptible by the senses OR thru personal experience... And that is an essential part of the claim - that human beings have a personal, immutable, and universal experience of morality.
But if I take your meaning of "phenomenal plane" to be something akin to the 'natural world', then the above question will apply... As well as an examination of the epistemological implications that follow.
Look forward to your response!
@@xTbyrd11x Phenomenal is that which can be determined/deciphered to exist by human beings - that which bears phenomenally observable attributes.
...
This came out of left field, has nothing to do with what I stated, and is pure nonsense >>>> that human beings have a personal, immutable, and universal experience of morality.
I’ve gone back and forth but I ultimately think Craig’s argument is superior and more convincing than Baggett’s
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I’ve thought abt that very thing, like u could just reject premise 1 by saying Platonism is true. However, Do you know of any good defense of Moral Platonism? I haven’t hear many
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf you cant reject a premise simply by showing there is an alternative answer to it, you have to show that answer is more plausible than the one your rejecting.
@JohnSmith-bq6nf values yes, but duties from moral platonism seems dubious.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf arguably you don’t get moral duties from platonism.
I listened to 25 minutes of this before turning it off. I was waiting for a defence of the two premises: "If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist", and "Objective moral values exist". 25 minutes in and they hadn't even started to support these premises. Please reply with timestamps if they do support their argument, but I'm not wasting any more time on this discussion. This video certainly isn't the most convincing moral argument for god.
As to the first premise, I view it as a definition. God is the source of moral values, in the same way that the magnetic field is the source of magnetism. That's just what it is. Sure, you can use a compass even if your don't know what the magnetic field is, but you're not going to build a smartphone without a deeper understanding of it.
As to the second, I would refer you to the work if Dr. Frans de Waal. He's got a TED talk or two or three about how pro-social behavior is detectable even by animals. Just as animals developed eyes because light is objectively real, they have developed a social sense because moral values are objectively real.
Maybe you should listen to it all..
Also... books and articles that they've written. Think of that one?
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor at least we know that the magnetic field is real. We don`t need to argue it into existence like apologist are doing it with their god.
@@oliverhug3 They didn't always. In fact, they were using compasses in China long before anyone had anything like Maxwell's equations. It was observing the interactions of magnets that caused people to speculate about some kind of something that caused them to interact, and then they labeled that "the magnetic field" and the interactions between them "magnetic force." Giving these things a label allowed them to speak intelligently about them and then eventually to Maxwell's equations and then to discover that electricity is part of the same thing and then that light is and then that led to vacuum tubes then transistors and on and on and on. But the ones saying, "There's no magnetic field. Look, it's all in your head," were further away from us than those who were saying, "there's something, and I call it a magnetic field," even when those who called it a magnetic field were speculating that it might be something that causes pressure differences in the atmosphere or whatever else.
In the same way, we've observed how people and animals interact, and we've observed some things that are common and said, "There are moral interactions and we can graph them and calculate them. They're outside of us." Some of those who have seen these have gone on to say, "In every other case where we see similar things arising out of nowhere, there's an underlying something that they come from: magnetic interactions from the magnetic field, etc. In the same way, moral interactions must be coming from some underlying something, and it needs a name. The name we dub it with us 'God.'"
At that point, it stands to the skeptic to discredit the work of researchers like Frans de Waal and show that these external evidences for recognizing fairness and altruism and reciprocity are flawed. Past that, we may have the wrong attributes of God (see the comment about those who speculated that magnets were caused by changes in the atmosphere that I made above) but we're still closer than those that simply assert that it doesn't exist.
@@oliverhug3 prove its not real
Am I crazy or did Craig make a formal logical error in his opening statement?
Without god there can be no objective morality.
Obj morality exists, therefore god exists.
That's affirming the consequent, a formal fallacy.
No, it's modus tollens.
HOLY CRAP! I DIDN'T KNOW YOU INTERVIEWED BAGGETT! REP LIBERTY U!
for great scholars, this was a little disorganized so I guess I have to blame the moderator
Or, they just had a lot to say.
Why isn't God allowed to speak to us?
Mr. Bertuzzi, I don't find the video much educational. The initial minutes were more about praising the two doctors, advertisement about the programme etc. Dr Craig was better at introducing his arguments, maybe due to his experience, but the initial 25 minutes was mostly wasted imo. This is just my opinion, and maybe because I am really a beginner at this
Dr. Craig is far better at most everything than I am, Albert, I assure you! Sorry you didn't find the conversation as educational as you'd have preferred. It was originally for the purpose of making people aware of the upcoming class, which accounts for the focus on promoting that. Sorry it didn't have more of what you were looking for.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. Such assessments have nothing to do with a diety.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. Such assessments are always subjective.
Each individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality? So a child molester's "morality" can include such behavior? That seems about as patently and obviously false as anything, which makes me think I"m not understanding the import of your point.
@@davidbaggett6005 Really? False? If I am not the sole arbiter of my own moral assessments, then why don't you identify the person who is forming my own moral assessments on my behalf?
I will await your excuse for not answering that straightforward question DIRECTLY.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Trying to get your point, Theo. By "sole arbiter" do you simply mean that it's you who decides what you believe about morality? I'd accept that point, but it's trivially true. That goes for all sorts of beliefs. People decide what they want on a whole range of things. The issue is whether there are moral truths that are objective. We can still often choose, at least indirectly,, to believe or be skeptical about various truths. Some people choose to believe in a flat earth, for example, despite the evidence that the earth is round. I suppose we could say each person is the sole arbiter of his or her own "shape-of-the-earth" assessments, but I can't imagine that anyone would make such an obvious point. Again, the issue is whether there are objective moral truths. If there are, that still leaves open whether particular persons choose to believe in them or not. People are skeptical nowadays about all sorts of obvious truths. So I'm still left wondering what your point is. I took you to be suggesting that an individual's beliefs about morality determined what was morally true for them, which is an obviously false claim. That's just radical relativism on an individual level, which is one of the weakest ethical perspectives out there, for a number of reasons--no evidence for it, ample evidence against it, self-refuting, impracticable, etc. So unless there's a third meaning attached to your words, what you said remains, to my thinking, either trivially true or patently false. I'm not insulting you, by the way--just trying to understand the position. Let me be straightforward in order to cut to the chase,, if you don't mind: do you think torturing children for fun is objectively morally wrong? Your answer to that will help me understand your position better.
@@davidbaggett6005 By sole arbiter, I mean the individual has sole or absolute authority making moral judgements and determinizations. Like I mentioned in my opening comment, morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. Likewise, an individual is soley responsible, accountable, and culpable for the intentions, decisions, and actions based on those moral assessments. There is no objectivity in issues of morality.
@@davidbaggett6005 I disagree. Individuals do not believe what they want. Individual has no choice whatsoever in the convictions they hold. They are either convinced of the truth of a claim or they are _not._ They _can_ choose to acquire new information. They _can_ choose to educate themself on the matter. They _can_ choose to challenge their justification in their belief. They _can_ even CHANGE their belief (as I so often have done) but only after they are _convinced_ of another conviction.
Love the video quality, what program do you use record/broadcast, thanks?
I am still waiting how apologists know god is good.
Does he claim he is good?
Or did the unknown authors make the claim?
In case he claimed it, It's easy for a god to claim he is "good". You know why? Well first off, he determines what is good and what is not.
So, it is easy to be good when you are all powerful. You don’t have to lie about whatever you did, because you are not accountable to anyone. You never have to steal to eat. You are the ruler of the universe and therefore not accountable to anyone and anything.
Most ancient religions have traditionally claimed that the gods were both good and bad. Christianity came up with a cop out by inventing a duality of opposing forces: a good God that controls the universe and an evil devil that partly and temporarily controls the universe, too. The devil and human "sin" is then blamed for the not so nice things. In this way the Christians preserve the perfect goodness of their God, by blaming the state of nature on the devil and the "fall" by ignoring that their god would logically be responsible for both.
And there is the Hebrew God Yahweh, which the Jewish Bible (the Tanakh) claims is responsible for both goodness and evil visited upon humanity: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. " (Isaiah 45: 7).
The Cathars certainly believed it possible. They were Christian dualists, and believed in two gods or principles, one good and one evil The good God was the God of the New testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, while the evil God was the God of the Old Testament and the creator of the physical realm.
This idea wasn't popular with the Church though, and despite many attempts of forcing them to the true faith. When they continued to not convert, the pope called a formal crusade against the Cathars in 1208 and had up to a million of them killed.
@Rabbi Circumcistein what on earth makes you think I‘m a dude?
@@oliverhug3 Dude, too much.
@Rabbi Circumcistein good to know. I don’t like to waste my time with drunks.🙂
@Rabbi Circumcistein are you still here?
I was born a female and I‘m still a female. The picture in my profile is Ricky Gervais a British comedian. Are you just so dense in the comment section on TH-cam or in general?
How could god's existence matter? Rebuttals to atheism don't mean much to ex-Christians who have "been there, done that", and can truthfully testify that their sincerity toward God during their Christian years did nothing to help them sense any relationship with god. Its just common sense, and practically immune from rebuttal, that there is no significant difference between a non-existent god and a real god who doesn't want to communicate with his followers.
Apologists appear to have forgotten that theistic arguments are not an end unto themselves, there is supposed to be a REASON that god's existence is significant. The alleged reason for bothering to prove god and refute atheism is that the atheist is in danger of divine wrath. But unfortunately , so many conservative Trinitarian Christian scholars have abandoned the eternal conscious torment view of hell and adopted annihilationism, that it is reasonable for the atheist to conclude that offending god is about as dangerous as offending a liberal pastor. The atheist already finds the permanent extinction of his consciousness under the naturalistic view to be acceptable; you can hardly expect him to think that permanent extinction of his consciousness due to a "god" is anything "worse".
3 great speakers.
I'm surprised that so few people have started integrating the work of Frans de Waal into their moral argument yet. It seems logical to me that animals developed eyes because light is objective, not subjective, and they developed noses because smells are objective, not subjective, and they've developed social structure because morality is objective, not subjective.
@@random-ks8et By similar logic, gravity is only objective on a local level because it's different in the moon than it is on Earth than it is on Mars. But no one believes that. As we've learned more, we've gotten closer and closer to understanding the underlying systems and mechanism that governs it. Similarly, as we study morality we find more and more that there are underlying systems that govern that are seen between cultures and even species.
@UC9Dot0z_0CxxTXcdHwqfWHQ That's an interesting assertion. I might be reading it the wrong way. I can see three or four things you might mean with what you're, which invariably means there are more ways that I don't see to interpret it. So if I'm coming at this from an odd angle, that's why. I don't really have time to track down every fork you might mean.
We see similar recognition of reciprocity, fairness, and altruism among insect colonies, bacterial colonies, and between fungus and plants in forest colonies. Are you then asserting that bacteria and fungus and plants are conscience? I suppose that's going to depend in a lot of ways on how you define "consciousness." I guess if you cast a wide enough net to include everything in the category of "conscious," then you're right, only things that are conscience are affected by morality... but that's basically everything so that's not really a meaningful statement.
Similarly, only conscience things can do math. I only know that 2 + 2 = 4 because of my consciousness. That doesn't mean that before there were any people that when two rocks fell into a pond then later two more fell in that somehow it was possible for there to only be three rocks in there. Likewise, there was a time right after the Big Bang when there wasn't any matter, just energy. That doesn't mean that the rules that governed matter weren't objective, it just means that the object of their governing hadn't come into being yet.
Likewise the first matter to come into existence may have been neutrinos, which don't have magnetic or electric charge. This doesn't mean that those rules weren't there, it just means that they hadn't been applied to anything.
Likewise the rules of nuclear fusion were around before there were stars. Likewise the rules for DNA transcription existed before the first DNA molecule. Likewise the rules that govern the energy capture and storage in photosynthesis before there were plants. And so on and so on.
Likewise, morality is an application to consciousness or life or whatever you want to call that. (I always just called it life but you seem to be leaning into a definition of consciousness, so that's fine, I'll follow you.) That doesn't mean that the rules aren't objective, it just means that the rules apply to living things, not inanimate things.
It feels like you keep moving the goalposts. It feels like your first question was basically "Okay, how do we apply this objective thing?" and I answered. Then you said basically, "No, I mean how do we know it's objective?" and I answered. Then you said basically, "No, it only applies to conscience things, show me it applying to non-conscious things." I don't see what it applying only to living things does for the point of it being objective any more than DNA transcription only applies to living things does for that being objective. Both are still objective. I've discussed resources that show that it comes up independently without human interaction. That is what objective means: that it exists independently as an object, not only in the subject. At this point, I've shown how it comes up independent of humans, it's up to you to show that in those cases it's actually something that we're reading into it. In other words, prove Frans de Waal wrong.
I would go the other way. I would more likely define consciousness at the ability to recognize and manipulate moral and other metaphysical realities. In such a case, of course it's only conscious things that interact with them. That's definitional. Just like all three sided polygons are triangles... that's the definition of a triangle. (And again, previously I would have defined it as life, not consciousness, but I'm trying to follow you.)
@@random-ks8et "Subjectively objective" is a very strange construction. I think I kind of get where you're coming from, and there's a certain truth to it. I go at it from another angle, though. I say that consciousness is the ability to recognize, manipulate, and appreciate metaphysical truths such as numbers and morality. So yes, you're right, only conscious beings can be acted on by morals. That's kind of definitional. Similarly, only conscious beings can choose between a bubble sort or an insertion sort, but one is going to be objectively better and the rules that define which is better existed before that choice was made. If we had discovered sorting methods fifteen minutes earlier, it wouldn't change the rules because they are objective. If dinosaurs or aliens discovered sorting methods, they would find the same sorting methods because discovering them didn't create them in that sense. The same seems to be the case for morals, as evidenced by the work of Frans de Waal.
@@random-ks8et I don't separate morality from conscious beings. Neither do I separate different sort algorithms from conscious beings. I fail to see how a connection to conscious beings necessitates subjectivity. I say that sort algorithms and morality are two examples of things which are both connected to conscious beings and objective. We know that they're objective because both of them work regardless of how we feel about them working. Both are evidenced in other animals and such which show various levels of consciousness. I mean, space rocks don't just sort themselves, but that doesn't mean sorting doesn't objectively work and that doesn't mean that morals are subjective.
@@random-ks8et I think he means "the way we felt" in the same way that we feel that red apples and red roses are the same color. There are objective realities that we have an intuitive feeling for. The fact that we feel it is not related to it's objectivity or subjectivity. The main thrust of all of his work is that the same intuitions -- feelings, if you like -- come about independently in other animals. That points to an objective reality from which morality comes. Dr. De Waal isn't much of a theologian, I will grant that. From a theological point of view, his statement is very analogous to saying "we therefore see that magnets aren't attracted by a magnetic field: rather we have created the magnetic field to explain why we feel magnets pulling on each other." A physicist would say, "No, that's what the magnetic field is defined as: that which mediates the magnetic force."
One of the reasons I don't like the naming conventions for the "arguments" for God is that they're typically closer related to definitions of God. They come up us from an earlier state of philosophy so we've got what we've got. But another analogy I've enjoyed has been if we say "Without an economy there is no exchange of goods and services, there are exchanges of goods and services, therefore there is an economy." No one is going to mistake that for anything other than a definition of an economy. If you say, "Oh, I don't believe in economies," then I'll point to two people trading and say, "Well there it is." If you retort, "But there's no money, no record of GDP, no ledgers, and I don't see any poor people around," I will say, "Those things are things we can explore separately, but no one ever said that any of those are an absolute requirement of an economy." Then upon further investigation we may discover that there never have been any GDP, ledgers, or records of sales, so everything we've ever learned *about* economies was wrong, but that doesn't mean there are no economies.
Bring WLC vs. PINKER!
Naaaah
Will the class benefit me if I don't know a lot about philosophy?
I would think and hope so, Eric; and you might enjoy learning more about philosophy along the way. You would certainly be welcome!
Moral? Is the title framed incorrectly?.
just a quick FYI: Cant prove a negative : If you believe something to be true which isnt............you will never ever ever be able to produce any direct evidence that supports it . Hence, theists will never ever ever ever have anything to offer in support of their god.....except emotion......clever word play.
That he will be finally kicking the unrighteous butts. Beats the kalam everytime. And then setting them on fire fire.
If 'objective' how does it apply to subjective humanity?
The same way you apply any other objective thing to subjective humanity. Gravity is objective, so when you drop something it will fall. Light is objective, so when you open your eyes you see. Morals are objective, so when you do wrong you invite wrath.
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor Woe, back up the truck, there Shaun. We are not talking about just "any other thing", astronomy or light. We are talking about OBJECTIVE morality' of values and duties which can only be subjective to every human beings, including a universal or collective subjectivity. Gravity and light are not morally objective, so try again and connect objective characters/god/devils that are not anthropomorphic in nature and you got my attention. Thanks
@@donnadeau7619 Your objection doesn't make sense. Are you saying that since I see some people saw a blue dress and other people saw a good dress light doesn't exist? Or are you saying that you have declared that morals are subjective and so the work of people like Dr Frans de Waal is invalid?
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor Jesus H Christ, Shaun color and light are not 'moral'. Give an example of an OBJECTIVE MORALITY that is not human in nature. All declarations, descriptions and interpretations from humans about nature and theology included, are and can only be expressed SUBJECTIVELY. You are a SUBJECT and cannot be an OBJECT.
@@donnadeau7619 Altruism.
Anyone else think that Dr. Baggett looks like the evolutionary form of Luke Barnes?
Are there books to introduce this argument for small children 7-11 years old?
Wonderful idea. Not every version would lend itself to such a venture, but some would!
Please no, the last thing our children need is more religious nonsense.
I understand how moral values point to the existence of God, but how do doodies? (😁)
I love that Dr Baggett sounds like Kermit the frog. Who better to talk about morality?
You're thinking of Jordan Peterson
Can this work for Catholics too?
I see no reason why Catholics can’t use the moral argument, I believe that Thomas Aquinas himself argued from morality to God in one of his ways.
@@vaskaventi6840 Thomas certainly dealt with the moral questions, but if you’re referring to his famous Five Ways, none of them specifically is a moral argument.
Presumably yes because it is still the same God of the Bible. Catholicism just differs in practices when compared to mainstream (general) Christianity.
for a catholic-thomist pov on the moral argument, go on the blogspot of edward feser, and read his last article "Lacordaire on the existence of God", the part. 3 named "Conscience".
@@moejoe6422 Lol, look at the Americans thinking general mainstream christianity is not Catholicism. No offense intended
26:56 Does anyone know where William James wrote about regret in this context, and where one could read about the epistemic moral arguments David mentions there?
you look like a mean lady
The Moral Argument is the most silly of all for proof of divinity. Humans doing Human things is our natural way. Killing is something we do naturally and only in a hyper peaceful society would you stop a child from killing animals for food or target practice.
All boys become men of military age and the skills of a warrior must be practiced as early as possible to maintain a powerful society.
Our nature is competition. Competing with nature so many of us can live alone for years, foraging and hunting food, building shelter, purifying water and cooking vegetables and meat.
We are as natural to the world as the trees. In fact, we are all peers here. Fighting for survival in this wild world together always remembering the possible betrayal of everyone and everything even your most trusted ally. The Spouse tends to be the Murderer...
Humans have engineered the world and it is now fully ours. We can change the climate, we can poison the land, the lake, and even our own living space. Every action, every bite, is a choice made by rationale or habit demonstrating my personality. I decide what I become by what I do here and now.
Survival is Moral.
Freedom is My Goal.
23:15
I my opinion christians have many stupid "evidence" for the existence of a god. The most stupid has to be this "Is there objective moral values. If there is then there must be a god" Its absolutely asinine. It doesnt make any sense at all.
no refutation, though
@@spectre8533 No need to refute. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@jorgena9695 you gave no evidence for this claim, so i will just dismiss it.
@@spectre8533 You can dismiss it if you want because it is my opinion and NOT a claim. I think it would be a good thing for you to find out the difference.
@Nicholas Kayban So now you are have an argument from authority? I can say that I have people with PhDs that dismisses those arguments. There! What good does that do us? If you are not fit to discuss this without someone with a PhD by your side then I guess its over.