The Moral Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2015
- For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org/moral
View the Kalam Cosmological Argument animation video: • The Kalam Cosmological...
View the Fine Tuning Argument animation video:
• Video
View Leibniz’ Contingency Argument animation video:
• Leibniz’ Contingency A...
Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today, such as:
-the existence of God
-the meaning of life
-the objectivity of truth
-the foundation of moral values
-the creation of the universe
-intelligent design
-the reliability of the Gospels
-the uniqueness of Jesus
-the historicity of Jesus' resurrection
-the challenge of religious pluralism
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains full-length clips: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on Twitter: / rfupdates
Like Reasonable Faith on Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
Transcript: The Moral Argument
Can you be good without God? Let’s find out! [Atheist helps kitten out of tree.] Absolutely astounding! There you have it - undeniable proof that you can be good without believing in God!
But wait!
The question isn’t “Can you be good without believing in God.” The question is: “Can you be good without God?”
See, here’s the problem: If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
And here’s why.
Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values - it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint - which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.
This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream - the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.
So, in a world without God, there can be “… no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, Atheist)[1]
God has expressed his moral nature to us as commands. These provide the basis for moral duties. For example, God’s essential attribute of love is expressed in his command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). This command provides a foundation upon which we can affirm the objective goodness of generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality. And we can condemn as objectively evil greed, abuse, and discrimination.
This raises a problem: is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The answer is: neither one! Rather, God wills something because He is good.
God is the standard of moral values just as a live musical performance is the standard for a high-fidelity recording. The more a recording sounds like the original, the better it is. Likewise, the more closely a moral action conforms to God’s nature, the better it is.
But if atheism is true, there is no ultimate standard so there can be no moral obligations or duties. Who or what lays such duties upon us? No one.
Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature - highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.
But the problem is - good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.
Read More of the Transcript Here: www.reasonablefaith.org/transc...
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it kind of funny a lot of atheists on here saying this video was dumb, there is objective morality and it's whatever I decided it is. Then they list a bunch of different subjective criteria that they have made up.
And more often than not, their opinions are shaped by Christianity and they just don’t know it, because they grew up in a culture shaped by Christian values and simply assimilated them, assuming them to be universal knowledge.
As Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun. Another day, another dipstick sprouts.
@@gabri41200 So you believe that a person is individually justified in committing whatever acts that they choose to since it's all just subjective?
So then you would also believe that a Islamic country imposing sharia law is just as moral as a liberal society with individual freedom? Or the antibellum South was just as moral as the Union North.
@@gabri41200 So you avoided answering my questions. You just tried to go ahead and with another canned response. Do you believe in objective truth? Also what do you ground your world view in?
@@JSRINTX my world view is based in not do harm to others. Simple like that.
I'm hoping WLC could enlighten me on a few points:
- how do I discover God's "moral commands"? Through scripture, prayer, revelation or does everyone just naturally know what they are?
- how many moral commands are there?
- what are they?
- do they all carry equal weight?
- do they require any interpretation? and if so, who's interpretation is objectively correct?
Lets say none of these questions could he answer? How would that go to demonstrate that the conclusion about moral realism is false?
It wouldn't demonstrate that. What it would mean is that God's moral commands are of no practical use. So when faced with difficult moral issues (such as assisted dying, stem cell research, abortion for rape victims), to judge what is morally right or wrong we can't simply refer to the absolute moral values that come from God.@@blusheep2
Start with the greatest command of the 10 commandments ''Love God with all your heart, all your mind and soul''
That means - same as if you met your future spouse - you want to know that person, and in a relationship, you therefore read the Scriptures to find out more. God is wisdom, love wisdom.
Read the commands Christ [who is God] made...and others in the NT.
The reading and speaking them will foster discernment;
There are moral, civil, and ceremonial OT laws - the former only matter for today.
Moral laws are 9 of the 10 Commandments [7th day Sabbath is ceremonial]. Those are the moral compass for the searching, unsaved, that should be taught in schools imo
@doctorlove3119 Paul wrote that the moral law is written on the heart of man.
Jesus made all that clear through his teachings since where to read in the old testament until the real explanation to every commandment.
You can know more of all that in the Books of Mathew, Marks, Luke or John John
Great video. One question: at 3:15 he mentions that animals have no moral obligations, which is why it’s normal for example, for a cat to kill a mouse. But that’s for the cat to eat the mouse, much like how we kill other species to eat them. And this isn’t considered immoral. Yet in this video he compares a cat killing a mouse to eat, with a human killing another human. How is this comparable? Would it not be a better comparison to compare a human killing another human with a cat killing another cat?
Even if cat kills another cat - it can happened only due to cat's instincts. All animals live only by instincts. Killing for eat or to defend their kittens or in battle for woman-cat) It doesn't matter. Cats do cat's things. But humans do not live by instincts. God said that His laws were written in our hearts. Thats why even atheists can be good. Thats why you do not think that killing another man to get a woman is acceptible. Because we are not animals. We have God's laws in our hearts. We call this - conscience. But it can be corrupted or completely burned if we will live in sinful way for too long. Or if we will be doing some terrible things. With each victim, killers develop a greater tolerance for murder, until they become completely immune to conscience.
@@duelist43Who gave the cat those instincts?
@@PiRobot314 Read my whole comment
Chimps kill other chimps...male lions will kill cubs that aren't their own... Sometimes animals will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent will pick out only one to take care of and nurture leaving the other one to die.
Monkeys kill other monkeys. Male lions kill cubs that aren't their own. Sometimes an animal will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent or parents will choose only one offspring to nurture, allowing the other one to die.
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
- Mark 10:18
“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” John 10:11
So Jesus calls himself good? And then says only god is good?
Bruh he s claiming that he =God here
He should have states that more explicitly though a lot of people would have persecuted him though in israel if he claimed it directly
Which specific god is the right objective reference point? If gods between each other differ from one moral nature to another, wouldn't that mean to have god also make it subjective nature as well. How can one tell if they are living in a set of subjective morals or objective morals?
The moral argument deductively concludes to a generic monotheism. One can conclude to specifically the Christian God from Christian evidences, such as the argument for the resurrection.
Not knowing more specifics about who God is doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of morality, just as not knowing how the universe was created doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of the external world. We simply see, directly, that certain acts are objectively wrong. - RF Admin
We have a number of levels of understanding to put the empirical issues in order for philosophical truth. WLC´s RF holds up their point below with generic monotheism and Christian forms of evidence. Building on Uni tarian Universalist interfaith and multidisciplinary knowledge, I identify as an interfaith UU Quaker Christian. What we can acknowledge empirically is the historical development and modern existence of University-based UN human rights world community. While allowing for diverse views, the standard has been set by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy proposal, negotiated witth the world community. In fact, University-based culture is Christian and spiritual in origin, so that modern education in Jesus´ legacy of modern democratic society, Civil and Human rights society gives us tools to evaluate our contexts, with laws, the non-binding UN U Dec of HR and its forms of binding conventions. Killing is a serious crime. Sexual behavior has its varying contexts in interpersonal relationships and larger consequences in family situations, even with risks of provoking violence. Moralizing religionists also enter into play. Orientation to develop skills, intelligence, and wisdom in spiritual practice is an informed aspect, no less. Buddhist, yoga, and tai chi related forms of meditation are all part of the most informed context. Did Einstein have affairs? Gandhi had a few kids, and finally vowed chastity, but had an odd manner of testing himself being saved from notorious scandal apparently by his spiritual integrity. Jerry Falwell met scandal with his own lack of control, among others. For example.
Being theist doesn´ t end anthropological issues. Conservative Christianity creates its own limitations and tries to impose rules, while progressive Christianity shows how freedom requires learning and operates very much in the full scope of multicultural, continuing ed-related society of modern structured pluralism. For one. American Jewish people and Muslims, among others, also. I knew an Indian guy from Kansas working in soc svc in NYC, for example.
Also, the basic morals of all religions are same: Dont kill, rape, steal etc.
@@mms0254 ...unless you are fleecing the goyim or waging jihad on the infidels!
@accelerationquanta5816 Nature has no opinion on what we ought to do, and your opinion is subjective.
I am theist.
Most humans have empathy. People without empathy don't understand why people shouldn't be killed. (But they don't kill people to avoid social exclusion.)
people is more selfish just be real. Empathy didn't help you to get an advantage then why you will give it to people that someday will harm you. School/Office/Public thats why we love family/country than any others.
Laws against killing are pretty prominent. Yet, America has been showing in the mass killing and brutality trends that ideological zealotry in economic materialism, ie profiteering businesspeople, and the like, have pushed people out of their minds. Spiritual practice for interfaith spiritualized practices that are compatible with an authentic high integrity Christianity are what I did, and what makes sense as a goal for learning moral skills.
Basing it on empathy is very dangerous because in the most simplest of examples is that most people would have more empathy for their pet animal than a random stranger they know nothing about.
@accelerationquanta5816 ayo what your statement directly clashes with love your neighbour as yourself
Anyone beside you is considered as your neighbour
If you are in the park , the people in your park are your neighbours
Basically its a law that love everyone as yourself
And ur saying dont love your neighbour
These days you see a directly correlation between decrease and emphathy and athiesm
These days more atheism that really puts into perspective why people don't care about each other anymore
The principal commandment of new testament is "Love thy neighbour as yourself"
See ? Christianity was the catylst of empathy
Now even less missionaries earlier america used to be
This is a circular argument. The second premise isn't self-evident. A consistent naturalist could say that morality is just a subjective feeling, and that in nature the only objective moral principle is "might makes right". Or as Thucydides put it "the strong get what they want, and the weak suffer what they must". The fact that in our time, there is widespread belief that slavery/genocide/conquest/etc. is "wrong" doesn't prove that that belief corresponds to anything in reality other than our personal feelings, or that it is binding on anyone who doesn't share those beliefs.
Well, that's the point. In order to be a consistent atheist you have to say that raping children isn't actually objectively wrong, it's just distasteful in our time. The thing is, many (not all, perhaps not you) atheists DO believe in objective morals one way or another. So how can they explain the grounding for such beliefs under atheism? Such people should reconsider.
And it's not circular reasoning, because they ground it in "our sense experience tells us morals are objective" is it circular reasoning to say there are physical objects in the world because we can sense them? Of course not. But someone who is blind and without any sense may have a hard time accepting that reality. Just because not everyone is able to sense the moral reality doesn't mean other do not sense it and that is therefore non-existent.
What about the categorical imperative? "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you". That seems like an ethical code without god
Great video. Moral realism is best explained under the paradigm of theism given a PSR. I think Josh Rasmussen’s formulation of the argument under his resolution to the gap problem is the best explanation for an objectivist view of metaethics. Excellent video!
Is it ever okay to kill people? Is it always wrong?
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros subjective ASSERTION nothing more.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros dangerous absolutism
Except morality, ethics etc is subjective, not objective.
Even within Christianity, everyone subscribing to that belief, would have a slightly different view of what is amoral or moral
@@trumpbellend6717 no , it’s objective , as the bible proves it in the old and the New Testament .
Amen
The whole point this video stands on is that there are objective morals, which can be called into question
He claims that "moral experience" shows that moral values are objectively real. Surely "moral experience" is subjective, yet he claims this proves something objective?
He also tells us that discrimination is objectively evil. Presumably there's an exception to this for discrimination against gay people.
If something is objectively wrong , its wrong
Stealing is always wrong
And ig its also that same sex marriage is also condemned in the bible commands
So we treat it as a rule
I always wanted to make these animation but i dont know how🤔
I agree. But does a crisis of morality for human beings dictate that there must be a god that exists in reality? Or are humans simply damned to have evolved to a point of capacity for abstract reasoning that they're tortured by said crisis? Might inspire someone to make up a god.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros no but neither can I prove that pink unicorns or leprechauns are "made up" 😜
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros no, it wasn't. At the time of ancient Christianity, there was no such debate. Most people believed in objective morality and Christianity just went there as a new typenof it
It dictates that morality is a human construct
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim, which should be a red flag to you for all religions. The ones that were falsifiable like the Greek gods being responsible for specific things like the motion of the sun and changing of seasons were falsifiable and so when we simply discovered the real cause of those things we had to stop believing in them. If a God is invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. It gets to a point where you literally can't disprove him. The main religions left today are of that sort. At the same time though, its not anyone's job to disprove a religious person's positive claim that their God is real, and they can't because they aren't and there's no evidence.
It says that if there is no inherent morality created outside of man, then essentially, man can make up whatever disgusting rules he wants and nothing can limit him.
There’s one part of this video that isn’t making sense to me. The part where it asked “is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is already good? Neither, God wills i because he is good”
Can someone make sense of this for me? It doesn’t seem to answer the question of whether good things are good because God willed them, or if they were already good to begin with.
Yeah, it doesn't answer the original question. The question's subject is the act or behaviour or belief itself, i.e., how does 'something' attain its status as good? However, the response seems to completely dodge the question by shifting the subject onto God, i.e., God is good rather than the act, behaviour, or belief.
I think the root of the question at hand is this:
How do we fundamentally define the word "goodness?"
There are many possible answers to this question:
- whatever God does
- whatever God commands
- whatever is beneficial to sentient life
- what we happen to like
- whatever makes us last longer
... or some combination of these.
I think if Craig just gave us a straightforward definition of "good" things would be a lot easier.
I am not really sure what Craig believes because it sounds like he is needlessly confusing things to me. Take these quotes from Craig for example:
"The theist does not make any claim that 'good' is somehow to be defined in theistic terms, e.g., 'belonging to God’s nature.'"
"something is good because of the way God is"
(Question 294 on ReasonableFaith)
Unless Craig clarified how to reconcile those *with a clear definition of "good"*, I remain unconvinced of his argument.
Great video! Here for my Oral Roberts University Christian Apologetics class.
Yeah great video. But I hate the term Christian Apologetics. It seems like Orwellian New Speak to me. For what does a true Christian have to apologize for?
God likes strawberry ice cream.
@@oscarmany1 if something creates something so evil. Doesnt that make the creator evil aswell?
How do you know bro 💀
@@BruhCredencial It is a critique of the video. It is a logical contradiction to appeal to the preferences of a god as an objective basis.
@@riveratrackrunner Creating evil is not inherently evil; however, committing an evil act is.
For example, the creator of the atomic bomb was not evil, but the USA was evil for using it.
@@hobdns5933 if killed a nice family that was Christian or religious or what ever and was a nice person. And I said god the devil made me do it (GoD), I’m I evil?
Yes
No.
So, whatever is commanded by God must be good because God said it, and God indirectly had the Bible written?
Is it moral to have slaves or kill girls for having sex before marriage? Please explain how you know.
This video will grow old like good fine wine!!!
- Teaching and showing this to my middle school bible study kids this sunday
It will never grow old to me, and wine really isn't good. But glad you show it to study 🙂
the very claim itself that "everything is just subjective"
relies on itself being taken seriously as an objective claim
it eats itself
every religion and culture may differ in what they consider to BE moral, but they ALL believe that morality is Objective.
We don't even behave like things are morality subjective, people argue about what is "right" not what we can and cannot constantly.
The only people in the world who truly behave as if things are purely subjective, are quite literally in loony houses
What utter nonsence, please tell me precisely WHY do you think human moral reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
You lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from christianity even assuming that the christian God exists is the only "God" and is moral.
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
It doesn't eat itself. The quote is not "everything is just subjective" but rather "morality is subjective". Objective statements about reality can be made whilst still believing morality is subjective - they're independent from one another, not synonymous.
We _do_ act like morality is subjective because individual people treat moral dilemmas in different ways. What you're talking about is a broad correlation between people's moral beliefs (most people think murder is bad, for example) but this in no way demonstrates objective morality.
Well, the big problem with saying morality has no inherent value is you take away any power of argument you have regarding morality. Any claim you make on morality in the future will just be laughed at and ridiculed because you already said it matters about as much as "Do you prefer mustard or ketchup on your burger?"
@@theboombody I'm not so sure if your view is entirely correct. Morality being subjective doesn't detract from the fact that we can make generalised claims, based on empirical evidence, in order to choose a 'more suitable' course of action. For example, we can scientifically support the claim that the majority of people value their well-being, happiness and community flourishing. We could follow from this and then claim that choosing an action which benefits this sentiment will be moral for the majority of people, and therefore the utility will be higher. Of course, this isn't bulletproof and when you start to question the more minute differences in reasoning it can become fuzzy, but to claim that _any_ moral claim is no different from one another isn't true from a broader societal perspective.
If there is no creation or God, why are there laws that support a design? No design need not laws or designers? So if there is no God, why physical laws?
I've been thinking. Is reasoning super natural or the brain process information and makes thoughts?
What do you think?
Is reasoning super natural?
Immaterial mind or only physical brain? 🤔 If ONLY the physical, then so-called "thinking" is just chemicals and electricity, a brain doing what a brain does, correct? ... Actually, if that is correct, can we know it? If all we are is a brain, what does it even mean to say, "I think..."?
@@jessebryant9233 I'm thinking more along the lines of a computer brain. A computer brain just process information and gives an answer but it can not think. It process vision, hearing, touch sensers, we dont have taste yet. But a brain just process information but it does not think.
I was thinking of thoughts are mental? If they are mental then a mind exist, but if the brain process information then it's physical and not mental.
@@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1
Agreed! The "I" is the mind, the physical brain is the CPU.
@@jessebryant9233 Yes
If the reasons, epistemology, you hold a moral value to be true are different from the person who holds the same moral value to be true then you merely agree on the moral value that does not mean you objectively agree since the reasons are not the same. "Hey Mark, why don't you kill people?" "Well Fred, my book says it's wrong and I don't want to suffer for an eternity. Why don't you kill people?" "Well Mark, I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." Same moral conclusions but arrived at subjectively. An objective moral is possible, but objective morality is highly improbable. This is because we do not know all the reasons of all the people's moral values throughout time, so morality is subjective. Why do you need morality to be objective?
It’s not “my book tells me to not kill people” it’s more so “this tells me that there IS an objective morality put into place by God as creator” The New Testament elaborates through Jesus the peak of goodness, “love thy neighbor as thyself” “any man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart” etc. The atheist provides the use of empathy as a means to describe why they do “good” yet fail to describe why our empathy leads us in that direction. Morality can be subjective in the our minds, but the point is that there is no standard and meaning to that morality unless there is a purpose to our own consciousness. If we ARE simply an accident and random processes of nature, what would lead us to believe that we can trust our senses enough to understand the fabrics of our reality? Evolution claims survival of the fittest, how does morality benefit that ideology?
@@Username-hd1co In the example it's not empathy it selfish self-preservation, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." We do not trust our senses alone to determine the fabric of reality. We use logic, tools, mathematics, deduction, experimentation, blind tests to reduce biases, philosophy, ethics, etc. Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolution is a theory that provides an explanation of how life became diverse and complex though natural processes just as gravitational theory describes the force between objects. Morality and ideology are most likely products of evolved creatures. I do not understand your question.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 evolution is a theory then? Then your guess is as good as mine. When have we ever witnessed speciation? Your perception of morality also assumes that everyone seeks the good for other simply because in a way we really just wanna look out for ourselves. That is pretty selfish but I could argue that I do good for the benefit of others.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 use science then, let’s use what we know to be true. The universe has a beginning, nothing can come to be out of nothing. What caused that universe? If we don’t know then we don’t know, but again let’s all say we don’t know and not bash each other’s intellect simply because we see intelligent creation as a possibility. Not saying you’re doing that but it opens up dialogue.
@@Username-hd1co Is English your first language?
Morality is just a system of conduct and values based on biological evolution and historical events. It's a means to keep a tribe united and maximize its evolutionary success. It varies by individual, culture era and species, it is limited to social animals. In the universe there is no good or bad, these are human conceptions. The true God is the Absolute and includes all opposites within itself. It is not good nor evil, it is beyond both.
This is wrong for several reasons.
Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief, surely everyone would realize that this culture is morally horrible. Or let's say you read in the newspaper how some psychopath decapitated a little boy, you are horrified again and realize that this person did something objectively wrong. And even you certainly don't live as a moral anti-realist, anti-realists are only anti-realists in language, every time you morally criticize or praise someone, you confirm your belief in objective morality, so it's not just a product of evolution, evolution is just the mechanism by which we discovered moral facts.
"no good or bad"... Yeah killing and torturing babies is not bad/evil. Sure thing.
@@kenandzafic3948 "Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief."
i mean, you guys have a god that told a father to kill their own son. i'm glad both of us find this horrible and insane.
How does information of the universe manifest itself into physical properties?
Edit: Can someone help me out?
The only think I can imagine is this. The reason water can be touch because two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule are together.
Meaning if this molecules didn't exist, there would be no water to touch.
So, the big question is, who made these molecules?
Laws creating laws, or a creator creating laws?
@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1
Paul said in Romans 1:19-20 that, ever since the creation of the world, God has made the knowledge of Himself evident to all people: “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (NLT).
Humans can take in the beauty and splendor all around and recognize that these created things testify to the existence of God, who is the all-powerful maker of the universe. According to Paul, God has provided sufficient insight into His eternal power and divine attributes through creation so that no one can be excused for missing His existence.
Psalm 19:1-4 declares, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world” (NLT).
Link: www.gotquestions.org/God-reveal-Himself.html
@@alinahaelssig2867 That's right. Thanks.
Well plenty are.
Being good without *believing* in God and being good without the *existence* of God are two very different things. - RF Admin
Great video! However, in my opinion, opinions on stuff like terrorism is subjective, but just happens t be widely shared. Take something like pirating games. Some people think it is bad, others do it on a daily basis. Another thing - this only applies to the Abrahamic god.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez i know, but the pirating being good or bad is subjective
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Right is good, wrong is bad. What is right and wrong? Right and wrong can only be determined by a set goal or destination established. For instance, if you wanted to travel from N America to S America the quickest way, you must travel south. That would be right and thus good. So is pirating good for society or bad for society? Well what is our goal for society? The greater good? Well isn't pirating a form of thievery? Well we know thievery is wrong for society and thus bad. Well if our objective is what's good for society, then pirating wouldn't be right and thus bad because it is a form of thievery which is wrong/bad for society.
@@usupreme this is subjective. for some people thievery is right, and they don't care about the so-called 'greater good for sciety'. while i totally agree with you, good or bad is subjective
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Do you think those people who think thievery is right think it's right for someone to steal from them? Personally I don't think so. So I don't think anyone truly think thievery is right, and right meaning how it should be in society.
@Acceleration Quanta i believe you forgot the phrase used in 4:10. We as humans seem to have a standard for what is good and what is evil, if ALL moral is subjective you as someone who neglects the existence of objective morals have to understand you cannot argue that anything done is bad. If you did that would be just your opinion on it, and your opinion is not more valid than someone else's. So, you need to understand you cant say anything about what is just or not. Next time you see a kid being raped and killed you cant say thats something wrong. If a friend of yours is shot at the street because they were someone of color, you have got to respect the muderer's opinion on it and remember to not say anything about the atrocities done at the holocaust, Hitler thought it was OK. If you are neglecting objective morals, you have no right to say that those things are bad, because on a subjective worldview they arent.
Moral codes are created by humans. You can have objective good within that moral framework. But the choice how to define morally good initially is subjective
As far as the rest if the universe is concerned, blind, pitiless indifference is precisely what you get. The fact that you find that unpalatable does not mean you can define god into existence
Can I steal your wallet?
@brogadierthethird7790 no. But you can give it your best shot see how far you get
Yeah but what's the explantion of the creation of those rules?
Goodness?
That contradicts with survival of the fittest
If someone would rob you and then say "hey I was just improving my own chances of survival so I'm justified in stealing form you"
Or "my grandma needs money for operation so I stole your bank money"
All morality is subjective.
I disagree that animals have no moral obligation. Their obligation is in survival. If a group of bison over graze and field and do not move to another area, they will die. They have a moral obligation to not die. You may call it instinctual, but there is plenty room for argument here
Many animals do not have this obligation, some of them just want to reproduce like bacteria or mosquitoes, etc...
Chimpanzees: Have been observed engaging in what appears to be lethal intergroup violence.
Some domestic cats: May kill small animals, such as birds or mice, for play rather than for food.
Dolphins: Occasionally known to kill porpoises or small dolphins just for fun.
I would argue, that you can only truly be good if you're an Atheist.
When an Atheist does something good, it's because they want to.
When a christian does something "good" it's because they don't want to go to hell.
That's not an argument. That's an assertion. A false one, at that. Moreover, it completely misses the point. The point of the argument is not to assess Christian and atheist psychology, but to show that the existence of objective morals logically entails the existence of God. So, let's say that your assertions are true. At most, this would mean that atheist intentions are better, not that God does not exist.
Of course, it's not at all true that Christians only do "good" because they don't want to go to hell. Christianity teaches that good works cannot prevent a person from going to hell. Those who believe this and trust in Jesus for forgiveness do good out of appreciation and love. 1 John 5:3 says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos What do you mean a false one? Atheists don't fear being punished or being rewarded for their actions like christians do.
When an Atheist does something good, that's 100% due to Morality stemming from Empathy.
When a christian does something good, it could never be Morality stemming from Empathy, because christians are too busy thinking about an afterlife.
@@drcraigvideos And an argument isn't false just because you want it to be.
Don't confuse morals for your little rule book.
@@TheRealCatof *"When an Atheist does something good, that's 100% due to Morality stemming from Empathy"*
And when you commit sin... it comes directly from the depths of your 'evil' intentions!!
THEREFORE: Your 'good' deeds are utterly 'worthless'!
You will be 'cast' out according to your 'evil' deeds! No one is judged on their 'good' deeds!
@@jimhappnin1425 I'll take my chances, considering your imaginary sky daddy is proven false by elementary school science.
very flawed reasoning. are we to assume that before christianity existed, communities were chaotic murderous places, theft was common, people were generally nasty to each other and that they indulged every impulse? also, look at some areas of the world where atheism is high: sweden, denmark, norway, switzerland, new zealand. those countries are consistently ranked as the most livable, high income, quality education, lowest crime rates, low corruption, etc. IF atheism in fact caused people to have a purely individual, chaotic ethic, we would see the opposite in those countries. in contrast, areas that are the least atheist--brazil, philippines, zimbabwe to name just a few--crime is high, education is low, lots of corruption, and a consistently low quality of life index.
How did you get all of that from the video? The moral argument is an argument for generic monotheism, not specifically Christianity. - RF Admin
All those countries foundations including their values for striving for excelence and avoiding corruption come from the past, when all of europe were protestant christians, they followed biblical standards and that allowed them to be more advanced technologically, economically, morally and politically than most of the world, but catholic countries were far behind that, since it teaches a corrupted christianity, most latin american countries sre mostly catholic in their foundations, which explains why there is a huge difference
Once europe was advsnced enough, people wanted to be moral without God, so people wanted to be like christians but without biblical righteousness, and they took the already made foundations by christians and kept advancing, without christianity, modern europe wouldnt be possible, you can try being morally good thanks to God, since he gave you his moral law engraved in your heart, even if you dont believe in Him, but your good works cant save you from your fallen nature, since you sre spirituallybdead, you need to born again for that, good works must be a product of your faith in Jesuschrist, not on your own fallen nature
I agree with you that the argument for God from objective moral values is weak and even sinister, but you're mischaracterizing the (admittedly rather poor) argument. It states that God is the source of objective moral values, not that you must believe in God to be a moral person, or to make those moral values realized.
@@adambamford956 how am I mischaracterizing it?
@@onsenguy because it’s not whether you believe in god that you can be moral, it’s the fact that God exists (according to this dumb argument anyway)
Craig starts the video with a nice animation of someone kindly helping a kitten out of a tree. I agree that we should care about protecting animals, and we should try to save animal lives by rescuing them from trees or bushes or anywhere else when they are stuck. (Genesis 22:13).
“God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values. It’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured.”
This is why the *love* of the Lord should be the beginning of wisdom (1 John 4:18).
We should love *truth* so we don't get led into deception by a supernatural being 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
We should extend *mercy* to everyone, especially to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 34:6-8).
We should be *patient* before we kill people (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
We should be *graceful* (Yes: Hebrews 4:16)
We should care about preserving life because life is a *holy* gift from God (Leviticus 10:6-10).
We should be *good* like the God who loves His enemies (Nahum 1:6-8).
We should seek to live in *peace* within our households - even towards those with whom we disagree (Matthew 10:34).
We should seek to live in *justice* by making fair laws for everyone (Exodus 20:5).
We should love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 25:39-44).
We should practice generosity over greed (Joshua 11:12-14).
We should practice self-sacrifice over abuse of power (Exodus 21:20-21).
We should strive for a society where people are treated *equally* and we don’t discriminate based on race or sex, etc. (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
Child abuse is wrong, which is why we should protect children from harmful parents (2 Samuel 12:15).
Racial discrimination is wrong. This goes along with the equality and we can see how it plays out in Exodus 11:7.
Terrorism is wrong. This is why we should help deliver people from the supernatural terrors we face (Revelation 6:16).
It is morally wrong to rape. Yes, I agree. (Though I would love to find a Bible verse that supports this assertion).
I'm not sure what I would do if I did not have the Bible to inform me of my deeply held knowledge of morality that is written on my heart.
Side note: “Animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong; the cat’s just being a cat.” Yes, this is actually supported in Scripture. The cat does nothing wrong. (Psalm 104:21)
Morality is not meaningful if you are only abstaining from rape and murder because God said it's bad
you can be good without payment.
There is always at least 2 subjects in a moral action. There is always an actor and always at least one sentient being effected by the action. If you were the only sentient being on earth and no god existed, nothing would be moral or immoral. Adding a second sentient being allows for actions to be considered moral if one being does something that effects the other. God is just another being that is effected by every action anyone does.
That's only because God is Good Himself. We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature as expressed in His commands to us. But it's not as if necessarily there needs to be two subjects for something to be good or bad. It's only a contingent truth. As you said, even if a person is alone in the entire planet, then his actions would still have moral worth, because the standard of good, like the standard of truth, is personal; it is God. So it's not just any subjects that needs to be present.
@Acceleration Quanta and your justification is?
What about masturbation?
@@lupinthe4th400 "We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature"
Then God needn't actually exist as anything more than a concept. God's nature is simply an abstract set of qualities and attributes, and Christians believe a God exists that happens to 'embody' that abstract set of qualities. Ironically, trying to wriggle out of the Euthyphro Dilemma this way ends up rendering God's existence wholly superfluous.
@@fanghur Christianity is not a philosophical system, a man-made autonomous project.
Of course there needs to be a God as the transcendent, absolute, objective and universal ultimate standard for measuring anything.
That's the point of the argument: unless there is no God, there is no standard for moral actions, and I would add that, ultimately, there is no standard for anything.
Without a Revelation, man may have imperssions of the world, but no knowledge at all (epistemology).
Without His existence, nothing else exists, for God is the necessary condition for the possibility of not only knowing, but existing.
It's because of God's Revelation to man through Holy Tradition, that we are able to argue this way. Moral experience confirms us this.
There is no good or evil. There are actions that are deemed positive or negative for human interaction and society. These have been ingrained in human behavior over 300,000 years. Murder breaks trust and leads to less than optimal communities, which is why we think of it as "evil".
False. Every human knows the difference between right and wrong.
We all know it is morally wrong to lie.
We all know it is morally wrong to torture a baby to death for fun.
There are so many ways to debunk Moral Relativism that I couldn't even list them all here. But what you lack, in any case, is any proof for your Moral Relativism belief. You just have faith that each person is their own arbiter of moral right and wrong. I thought Atheists were against faith? Truth is - we all must have faith in philosophies because the scientific method has limits so we can't know everything.
Examples of Atheistic faith-based beliefs: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, and many more
@@lightbeforethetunnel do they know these things are wrong or do they feel they are wrong? If they know how do they know? What knowledge do they have that shows they know?
Ok then why do you say unfair or when someone betreys you, you say it's wrong.
@@NotChinmayi because you feel it shouldn’t have been done.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because THEY were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔
You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
Correction: "...it is NOT possible to "be good without G_d...". You do not have the tools nor standard of behavior.
As it is written:
"...you shall be holy for I the Lord your G_d am holy...".
..
this video what interesting, but it was so obviously leaning on way rather than being natural.
Subjective morality is giving every single person the authority to decide whether an act is morally justified or not. This is a recipe for pure insanity no matter how you slice it. If it's based on an individual's perspective, then how about subjective reality? Should every person have the authority to create their own little reality and then declare it actuality? If so, where does it end? Should each individual have the authority to decide that the truth is actually a lie, that evil is actually good, or that illusion is actually reality? It's a downward spiral leading to ignorance and self-destruction on a global scale. Even if people don't believe in God as a supreme being, at the very least he's a personalization of an objective reality/morality.
Authority doesn't have to be given. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her morality. Moral assessment is the product of cognition, and therefore, necessarily _subjective._ Moral assessments are not _real._ They are imaginative. Moral assessment requires a reasoning mind.
Reality, on the other hand, occurs _independent_ of any human cognitive process and is therefore, necessarily _objective._
Reality is the set of phenomena which occur at a particular point in space (location) at a particular point in time. Realities are _observable_ at the location and time of their occurrences.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Did you even watch the video? Is there an objective morality and does it have authority? I believe there has to be otherwise every individual has the authority to decide what's moral or not. Plus, I don't believe that this 'assessment' is imaginary. It certainly comes with consequences and they don't just affect you.
@@Stranzua I didn't say moral assessments didn't have consequences. Each and every individual is responsible, accountable, and culpable for the intentions, decisions, and actions based upon their moral assessments.
No. There is no such thing as objective morality. And no, morality has no authority.
@@Stranzua Yes. Each individual decides what is moral or not.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I'm sorry but we can agree to disagree.
This literally had no explanation. I can agree love is the foundation of morality but why is that? I would say be the opposite is bad, it hurts. It doesn't hurt because God said too necessarily. That's where morality begins, good vs bad is how you feel about an act being done to you and the sympathy or empathy you feel when seeing others endure the same hurt/injustice. To make like go smoother and more positively, do onto others as you'd want done to you. If everyone follows that rule, which is rooted with love (could argue selflessness in a way cuz no act is selfless, moral desert) Then we're a functioning society.
Yeah, we'll never reach a time when everyone is empathetic. So if it relies on that, it's doomed to fail.
Based on that logic. Stealing and raping is not bad because the stealer and the rapist feel good about it! Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's actually good. So there needs to be an all wise being to tell us which actions are good and bad.
If God existed, why is such intellectual strain necessary to “prove” its existence? Shouldn’t it be obvious? Why wouldn’t God make it more obvious for people who require a higher criterion for evidence? Two possibilities: either God doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care that we don’t believe in him.
Or you proud enough to reject any evidence of God and want to be your own god. The True God are hidden for reason people like you could have a free will to believe in Him or not to believe. It's so obvious. What free will we could talking about if God's presence was open in His full Glory for everyone?
I wonder if "God" is a Subject?
Naaah.... God is super extra special
Ok so we are still fighting the morality wars. The question posed is” without god, can anything be good or evil?” Apart from “of course it can, we decide our own morality “ being an answer, there are other ways of looking at it. One, obviously, is to dismiss the question on 3 grounds ( existence of god, demonstration of his morality, evidence that those following his morality are not particularly , er, moral.) another is that throughout the world, followers of 2700 gods, and followers of none recognise a general standard of morality which cannot have just come from one deity, and observably did not.
Like it or not, the confection of a supernatural being who decides the rules leads to planes flying into buildings, to beheadings, to bomb vests at pop concerts, to women being imprisoned for not wearing face coverings. Not because god didn’t decree this, but because he did. Read your holy book. Tell me the bastards who carry western hostage heads around in a bucket are not inspired by their god. Take your godly morality and ram it as far as it will go. Don’t you dare tell me you are more moral than I am.
By indulging in numbers and worst cases exclusively, you miss the very context of this kind of dialogue. We´re not in an immediate and pervading terrorist context. We´re in Jesus´ legacy of University-based, UN human rights world community with structured pluralism. The latter was founded by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy and negotiated with the world community after the massive destruction of WWII. Jesus´ legacy of modern Universities and modern philosophy with empiricism is the object of dispute by most anti-religious anti-theists in their own ideological myth making. So, I recommend getting literate about all that. I got my college degree in bio anthro, worked in social services, did and do personal growth psychology, pursued an interfaith spiritual path into seeing it as an inclusionary progressive interfaith Christian identity, involving Buddhism, yoga, tai chi, etc.
Understanding the misbehavior of American and European-led business profiteers, and how Social Europe provides a prominent pro-social standard very suppressed in the US is another good angle to learn about. Understanding the benefits of modern democratic Civil Rights for University-related learning as modernized high integrity spiritual behavior in Jesus´ legacy provides the key kind of historical sociological and psychological foundation for a modernized spiritual-religious identity. And its moral framework. Jesus´ 2 loving Commandments are the foundation of Christianity, not abortion, not fundamentalism, not conservative theology, and not business profiteering in America and competitive, abstracted-pro-rich economics. UN human rights go with University-based culture in Jesus´ legacy to allow for learning in love a range of understandings and skills to sustain structured pluralism. Islamic codes represent a few issues, but are exacerbated by heedless profiteering US and other businesspeople in their own indulgence of the abuse of power and refusal to acknowledge spiritual-religious standards. Consumers and social entrepreneurs can exert their own power and influence if they build their own spiritual-religious practice, as in US food co-ops and EU green power co-ops, for example.
Why are all those people wrong?
@@jakefink4040 which people?
actual facts
Bahahahaha! 😂 😂 😂 Good one, I needed that laugh, cheers 😂
@@TheTruthKiwi how so
@@thelivingcross3785 We most likely naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever. :)
@@TheTruthKiwi Lmao do you claim that with absolute certainty without absolute certainty? It’s subjective to say that and you can’t even prove that your standard of truth is even reliable.
@@thelivingcross3785 Notice how I said "most likely?" I can't claim anything with "absolute certainty" and neither can you. Are you absolutely certain that the bible is true? You can't even prove that any of the supernatural claims made actually occurred.
From what we know and have studied through archeology, natural history, social and behavioral research I am certain that we developed morals and ethics naturally. I am also certain that they don't come from some magical entity in another dimension.
It's not valid to you until everyone is a zombie to the myth...
Forgive me Father, I'm good and evil. I like both things, I'm very sorry God. I'm sorry dad I have failed you. I'm sorry.
A god is certainly NOT required for humans to be "moral" least of all the christian one
The claim in the video is that humans don't need to believe in God to act morally. Rather, the claim is that without God, there doesn't seem to be a foundation for objective moral values and duties. If you reject that claim, then how do you explain the existence of objective morals? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos lol objective morals require no more than an agreed upon reference point in order to function. What makes you think that YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the percieved whims of the "God" you hold as the one true God must be that reference ??
@@trumpbellend6717 Something is objectively true if it is true independently of our subjective opinions of it. So in what sense are morals objective if they are based on "an agreed upon reference point?" - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? this is not the case. But let me give you an analogy perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because they were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔
You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
@@drcraigvideos Let me elaborate for you i shall deal with it in respect to both the christian and secular perspectives this is going to entail a rather long response I'm afraid I apologise in advance. I have used 2 small copy & paste pieces of data at the start the rest is all my words So please bear with me and read through to the end .
Ok let's start with the christian perspective as it's by far the most complicated. Theological morality revolves around the concepts of Sin and objectivity neither of which stand upto scrutiny. Sin is a percieved transgression against specific gods wishes yet if we are talking about what SIN is and the objectivenes of a god there are only 2 billion Christians out of 7 billion people on earth so that's 5 billion people dont even think the god with the talking snake & donkey Is the correct one. Let's break that down before we address christianity shall we.
of followers:
Here are just 20 of the most popular gods out of THOUSANDS
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
Ok now let's move onto the one that's the correct religion in *your subjective opinion*
Christianity is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist - the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone.
According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025.
Do they all agree about the trinity ?
Is the pope the head of the church?
Can priests marry ?
Birth control ?
Sexuality?
Can women be ordained ?
How to attain salvation?
The nature of mary ?
Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism
Freewill vrs predestination ?
Eternal security ?
Faith vrs works ?
Heaven ?
Hell?
Evolution?
Alcohol?
Literal or aligorical?
The trinity ?
I'm going to stop here because I could literally go on for hours. They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE*
All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue.
Now if YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
But let's just suppose there is *A* god for the sake of argument, and his intent was to convey his moral objectivity to us via scriptures. ( _extremely unlikely god would choose this method in my humble opinion_ ) has he been successful?
I think we can all agree that need for apologists and interpretation of copies of copies of translations has led to vast numbers of wildly differing beliefs and even none belief. That's just in regard to the god of the bible, Not to mention all the other current and past gods people believed in.
So I think we can all agree he has failed in achieving objectivity with regard to morality in this respect. Under the current world theology, objectivity does not exist.
*HOWEVER* there is still the possibility of a more deist god who exists and has a objective moral standard as yet not conveyed.
This god may agree with my moral views about our current proposed gods scriptures containing unjust and imoral teachings, for all we know. Or maybe his objective morals could be something that we all would find abhorrent who can say.
*This kind of objectivity would be a bit like getting a set of wardrobes from IKEA with no construction manual. Utterly useless* , we would just have make do the best we can ourselves regardless of whether the manuals exist or not is irrelevant without knowledge of what they say.
A god that is not detectable in the real world is of no more use than a god that does not exist.
So in short for me the objectivity of any gods proposed or otherwise is either none existent or irrelevant.
In either case It would be illogical to base morality on this undetectable concept.
There is an example about a cat eating mouse. They do it because they need it for energy. We also kill some animals and eat them because we need their energy. That example doesn't make sense. Or you may say two wild animals kill each other but they are not put in jail. They are indeed animals. Their brains are not as evolved as ours. We have logical thinking. We do good things to prevent bad consequences. We have empathy feeling. Our actions are based on intuition. If we were like animals, we would also kill each other when hunting the animal we eat, or when our living area is getting captured by others. Just like animals. But we don't do these things because we are the result of evolution.
Additionally, that argument mentioned in the video is disrespectful towards atheists. That argument claims that atheists are not moral people. But you can never judge a person by the category they are in. Deists or Theists can also murder people or do morally wrong actions even though their religion or their god requires the opposite. It's the same for atheists. Morality does not only depend on your religion or the belief in god and it doesn't mean others (atheists) are immoral. Of course, all those religions and beliefs in god have an impact on people's morality but that's just a small percentage.
It seems like you're conflating the objective standard of morality (or the claim thereof), with individuals will or desire, and ultimate caring out of that standard in their lives. So they may or may not carry out the standard, but I think it's a differently question of whether people carry out the standard or not is indicative of whether the standard actually exists. However, people have been arguing this probably for all of history, and both sides will probably say that they can clearly refute the other's argument, but ultimately people will decide based on their belief.
@@mpersand _"but ultimately people will decide based upon their beliefs"_
WHICH ARE *SUBJECTIVE* !!!!!
that's the whole definition of "subjective" ( mind dependent )
Objective means true irrespective of the conclusions of a mind.
@GetsaucedOn Oh the irony, you lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that its YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from religion.
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
@GetsaucedOn You say I have "no foundation for my morality" How utterly ignorant, to me and like minded people "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe points 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.
@GetsaucedOn You mention Hitler, you do realise that Hitler stated on many many occasions that he was a Catholic don't you ??? Both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ...
You know that on the belt buckle of every german soldier it said "Gott mit uns," God on our side?
Did that actually therefore make it so or does their subjective opinion not matter in the slightest as I believe ??
There are a thousand quotes that I could paste on here that would at the very LEAST demonstrate that Hitler used religion as justification for the nazi "final solution". But I will refrain from doing so as my point is made.
However I will just state this approximately 93% of the German state consisted of Christians and more than 50% of the waffen ss were practicing catholics. Yet the church saw fit to excommunicate only ONE and that was not for his actions in " the "final solution" but for........
Marrying a protestant. 🤔
People use logic to understand the world, so did people create the world?
What logic people use if the whole universe was suddenly appear with no logical reasons and these people are product of non-logical randomness? How can you even understand something if your brains are completely random? I wouldn't trust such mind. The fact logic and science (what completely based on logic) exists is enough to prove that there is God.
Why the slightly weird English accent?
Argument from personal intuition. And I used to think Craig was smart.
This makes perfect sense if you think about it
Like even a terrorist can define good and bad
But he would say what he does he justified and give a bunch of reasons
Does that make him right?
I think right and wrong are fixed and cannot be fluid/changed
Killing is wrong period.
Well, "being good" in this modern world is a lot to do with laws of the land, and penalties for breaking those laws AND, the laws that work best are the ones with high penalties AND with a high detection rate. Here's an example. I was talking to a young person - 25 - about speeding rules, and he was quite honest and said that he rarely kept to them - around town -because he knew the risk of being caught was very small; however, he said that he always observed parking laws because he knew that if he broke them there was a high chance of him being caught. So, a lot of the time, people are "being good" because there are penalties attached to not being good. BTW, it's interesting to note how many of the 10 Commandments have found their way into the laws of the land. In the Western world blasphemy laws have fallen not of use. Not so, of course, in Islamic counties. Also, adultery, for example, isn't against the law in Western counties but is evoked in Muslim counties. It's interesting, to ask why Western counties have "ditched" most of the 10 commandments from the laws of the land.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Well, Jesus and the God of the Old Testement are one and same being and so Jesus created the 10 Commandments.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros But where did you get all this information from about God? Oh yes, somebody told you, or wrote it down in book. Yes, I see...but you don't!
You’re right, but our judicial systems and laws are brought about through our own sense of morality. If we didn’t have a sense of right and wrong, we wouldn’t have come up with prisons, jails, penalties, etc. Precisely why pigs and monkeys don’t have jails and prisons and laws and societies, because of their lack of morality.
@@Username-hd1co "Our own sense" ? Surely, you mean the Government decides, based - sometimes - on pressure by groups who might want change for no moral reasons whatsoever.
@@musik102 no, you’re talking politics. Im saying, within a society of hundreds of millions, there needs to be order, laws, policing, etc. We all can agree on that, but WHY do we? Why can’t we all just live with no ordinance? I’m not saying we should, but why not?
People had moral values (right and wrong) long before religion existed.
Notice that the existence of religion is no part of the argument. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos And if there wouldn´t be this strange god you believe to be real, you would eat your child if you are hungry? Is that what you believe? Do you really think we humans would not be able to understand that running around and killing your neighbors is suboptimal if you want to live in peace and harmony in a community? Really? Well in that case it might be better that you believe in this god to be real.
Russ Shafer-Landau is a prominent metaethicist who defends and argues for moral objectivity without God, and I think he succeeds. I am a moral objectivist and it’s compatible with the belief that God doesn’t exist. Though I am an agnostic myself.
One view might be that the moral laws are timeless and thus could not have been created. Another interesting path is to go gown a Euthyphro style objection that includes the rebuttal of God’s nature to demonstrate that morality should be thought of as seperate to God (and that this is no necessary problem for theists).
Religious/spiritual beliefs are indistinguishable from make-believe.
How about the faith-based (religious) beliefs Atheists adhere to, like: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Uniformitarianism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, etc...
Atheists believe philosophies like these without the ability to know (scientifically verify) they're true. Is that make believe?
Much worse, many of them are self-refuting
@@lightbeforethetunnel You are right here, which science can only go off what man has knowledge of already and nothing more. Only man comes up with the research for the books of science then that would mean man knows very little about how the world works but the Bible explains so much more than even science could ever comprehend for itself.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Nice strawman.
Atheism is simply a negative claim about god.
A negative claim's evidence is that the positive claim it corresponds to lacks evidence itself.
@@Pepsi-Mann21 While atheism can be described as a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not merely a negative claim. Atheism also encompasses a positive assertion that there is no sufficient evidence or justification for the existence of a god or gods. Therefore, atheism entails both a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists and the positive claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. It is essential to recognize the active stance of atheism as a position that takes a stance on the existence of deities rather than simply being a passive lack of belief.
We have no reason to say GOD is our reference point. Instead it is more truthful and logical to say our reference point is based on the well being of others.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez but 'good' isn't a measurable property of anything. It results purely from our own emotional judgements about an act. There is nothing 'objectively' wrong with wilful murder, it is only our judgements about it that make it wrong.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez all the qualities you just mentioned are subjective. They all have different definitions to different people. And if you're talking about Yahweh, then by no means is he any of those properties.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez declaring a god to be good then using that to infer that everything it does is good is a logical fallacy. If god is truly good (and omnipotent) then the perpetration of atrocities is inexcusable. And what about Ezekiel 9:5-6, where Yahweh commands the killing of babies *without pity* ?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I recommend this video, which holds good insights despite being 11y old:
th-cam.com/video/hSS-88ShJfo/w-d-xo.html
Well, where does that reference point that is supposedly based on the well being of others come from?
Is something good because God said it's good, or is it good despite God saying it's good? These aren't the same things.
Yes you can- but you won't be safe from a lot of things
And believing in "god" will somehow magically make you safe? How that?
The one thing that no one realizes, the universe is from God, if he says that killing someone is good, it will be good, you are under his rules, and not mere human opinion that will change something.
That might be true. But he doesnt say killing is good so thats irrelevant.
@@mackanandersson8373 great response.
@@yosefzee7605 thanks man
@@mackanandersson8373 I agree with you, but what I meant is that if he defines what is good or bad, we will not be able to go against it, more and only theory.
@@ltrp3374 right, and I think its lucky that we dont get to decide over good and bad, since we are only human. Its good that God handles those things. He has a wider perspective
1:41 in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God.
2:59 I mean yes and no? Everyone forms their own subjective morality, as you previously stated, whether they are religious or not. There may not be moral duties to the Christian God, but there are moral duties that each person defines. I would argue that once again it comes down to societal standards that "lay duties upon us". Once again, people are not going to agree with societal standards but that doesn't mean that the society won't influence people.
3:27 Once again, societal standards based on what is right and wrong. That's why we have laws and the judicial system. If God doesn't exist, human society would not fall apart in chaos and mass death with no consequences. As a society, we give people consequences through the judicial system. I'm not saying that the judicial system has no flaws but we rely on it as human society.
4:30 Sure objective morals won't exist ( Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.) but subjective will and we give ourselves our values and moral duties based on how we see the world. With or without God. Even within the Christian religion, the objective morals from God may differ, at least a little, based on who you ask because everyone may interpret the Bible differently.
4:42 Atheism as a whole is people who disagree on so many different things. Just the same as any belief system. But, based on my perspective that I provided, there is a world of morality without the existence of God, of which to say, in a world with no Christians there will still be morality but it wouldn't be based on a God, it would be either based on the individual or human societies.
Let me know your thoughts, any criticisms you may have. My argument isn't in malice but rather a thoughtful one.
"in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God. "
1st problem... if someone decides to live their life like "Hitler the 2nd" or if someone decides to live their life like "Mother Theresa the 2nd", in a non-God world where we all essentially become dust in the end, and cease to exist, it doesn't matter which option you'd choose because the summation of all the choices in your life aren't counting or applying to anything that'll matter once your life is expiring. You won't exist to care what your legacy was, how rich you were, and if anyone loved you after 'cause they'll all be right behind you joining you as dirt.
2nd problem, from a naturalistic world you're begging the question when you say "right" and "wrong", or good and bad. Some societies say women have no rights, some do. It wasn't that long ago till we thought so to, and it was honestly the help of Judeo-Christian values that human beings were made in the "Image of God" (imago dei) and all human beings have equal worth that pushed to equality in western society after the enlightenment, 'cause throughout history... go back to the Greco-Roman empire where almost 50-60% of the population were slaves of some sort from war, and "might makes right", you weren't granted worth it was more of a caste system you had to earn your worth. Also, if you recall it wasn't even that long ago since the Dred Scott decision where African Americans weren't even considered citizens... so the POINT that I'm trying to make is, if you're going to leave it to Cultural Relativism... you'll never have objective moral standards, you'll only have a group of individual "opinions" or "tastes" that will constantly change back and forth over time. One thing that's happening in America with so much child predation and grooming, there's actually groups trying to "normalize" pedophilia and get rid of the whole child consent laws... so there COULD be a time in the future, I'm honestly calling it within our life times, that sex with minors could be some allowable thing the way our society is degenerating. But then... there could be a revolution that decides to swing it back and say once again that's evil 100 years later. You see the point I'm making? What you think is moral or ethical, is really "what's convenient for the 'majority' that they can get away with" at a particular time in history". Why is it ethical that these rich people can keep all this money to their selves in this rich part of the country, how is that fair? Well maybe the MORAL thing to do is for us to get pitchforks and band up and break into their house and steal all their stuff so we can have it. But I thought stealing was a moral wrong? You see how confusing this is... if there's no objective standard you can basically justify almost anything out of convenience/inconvenience to your way of living, and human beings are selfish and will always put themselves first.
First, such societal standards are purely subjective. With no supreme being, objective morality fundamentally ends, as there is no normative patterns of action. People might still believe in "good" and "evil" but they will be totally determined by society and culture, having no objective basis and such no universal need to follow them.
You were repeating the same thing quite a bit but to your entire comment -
Most of our societies laws and jurisprudence are based off of religious laws, they didn’t just drop from the ether. If God didn’t exist human society would fall apart, or whoever had the most power would enforce their own subjective laws.
What you are saying is that it’s ok to follow societal standards and laws (i know u stated that is has flaws) but the only reason most non-religious people obey the law is because of the fear of imprisonment. No atheist or agnostic cares about the morality of their actions as long as it suits them. They are their own God in their lives declaring what’s right or wrong for themselves. If they try and declare right or wrong for others obviously you would agree that that is unjust and unfair.
All ‘societal standard’ is is public opinion which too is subjective and indifferent.
Also, you kept saying that even religious people disagree on many things like atheist. that is true but for different reasons to an atheists. there are explicit laws in the Bible that can’t be interpreted differently. There are no Christians who would argue about the meaning of a commandment in the Ten Commandments.
Whereas the atheist debating each other is futile because they are not even arguing about something objective or definite. They are literally sharing their own opinions and disagreeing with each other.
The different Bible translations you talked about are not different interpretations they are simply different versions of English for different understanding, so maybe for a child or an adult, or some who speak in different dialects.
Since you are fine with societal standards without God that means if u found yourself in societies across human history like nazi Germany or Jim Crow America. You would (by your logic) comply to those societies laws and standards JUST because a lot of people have that opinion? If you say you wouldn’t follow those laws because they are not agreeing with your subjective opinion you still have no right to tell anyone owning a slave or anyone killing a Jew that they are in the wrong because morality is nothing more than your opinion to you. If u were to try and stop someone doing that evil, then you would be playing God or tyrant, forcing your opinions on others.
@@CJ-fq2cf Civil societies in existence even before the writings of the Tanakh, or your Old Testament, held that things that created suffering were morally bad. Yes, they may have had civil laws that dealt with matters of worship, but the laws against killing and stealing are almost universally accepted (with or without religious belief) to be just, as these acts cause harm to individuals and society at large. This is the basis for which, over the centuries, humans have based their civil laws. Communities have over time tweaked these standards as were necessary to promote the advancement of their communities, fixing errors along the way to the betterment of society at large. Yes, this makes them subjective in nature, but part of being an adult is recognizing that not everything is perfect and making the attempt to better oneself.
As to your second point, we agree that the division of Christianity is a result of doctrinal differences, but before I get into the nitty gritty please refrain from the no-true-scotsman fallacy that is the center of the cock measuring between denominations and attempts to distance oneself from the atrocities committed by those devoted to Christ with whom you may disagree. Take for example the division between the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther. His disagreement was multi-faceted. He disagreed with indulgences (the selling of relics to fill the coffers of the church), the papal hierarchy, the focus of mass being on song rather than on the Bible and the contradictions between papal edicts. In a sense, today Christianity sells Christ for a prayer insomuch as it could be argued that modern Christianity is back to selling a prayer for devotion and often boasting rights in opposition to other groups of local Christians. Atheists don't need to debate the existence of a supreme being credited with creating the universe and everything therein with other atheists since atheists have the same philosophical position when it comes to the unjustified claims of theism.
The different Bible translations are updates to the Bible from the original English translations in Archaic forms of the English language, but every time you translate something into a new language, meaning is lost. In English, the Bible can be quite ambiguous or vague at times, which is a good reason for the divisions among Christians, every division claiming to have the only correct interpretation of scripture and downplaying or outright questioning at times the salvation of other denominations (I have witnessed this in several denominations including the Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-denominational churches). We atheists generally disagree on a great many other subjects, but that is non-sequitor to the issue of theism.
Lastly, no, if I found myself in the midst of the Nazi regime or Jim Crow America (strange mention considering we are heading directly towards that future), I would be a vocal critic and probably wind up in prison for opposing such things like ubermensch because it would cause immense harm to individual people and society at large. This idea that somehow without a deity promising a reward for following his book or punishment for not doing so will lead to downfall is demonstrably false. In fact, among high income nations, we are the most religious and yet have the worst societal health in the developed world in every metric such as crime, bodily/emotional/mental health, access to healthcare, life expectancy, economic mobility child mortality, teen pregnancy and so on. Religious belief has not contributed to societal health in any way shape or form and the most secular of nations also happen to perform better with citizenry that is better educated and happier.
@@Jaryism
IF there is one RIGHT answer among an INFINITE amount of wrong ones then wouldn't it behoove us to make as many guesses as possible just to hedge our bets? Sure we also run the risk of abandoning the right answer if we have find it but certainly knowing the answer even for as little as 5 minutes is better then an eternity of doing the same wrong thing
Moral standards are good because of God's nature/essence, but how can we tell God's nature/essence is good, is it good because of the commandments or are the commandments good because of God's nature/essence? Why wouldn't we think God is evil? It all comes down to defining the word good. First we define good, if we can define it, allowing us to see God's good essence, I'll be fine with that, but we can't do that, and If we say God is good, taking the bible or any other holy book as a reference, then this doesn't solve anything, and we can take a step back and ask again: Why are the commandments good? From there, all we will have is circular reasoning.
I think it’s quite evident that atheists at large and peoples of faith both see an objective morality.
Both simply understand such through different lenses and perspectives.
@@oscarmany1 ok, cheers, and what lense is that? And what do you see exactly ?
@@oscarmany1 Thanks for your reply Oscar, yes I know about Jesus and the miracles. Today, I don’t know if there would be too many people that do not know of Jesus and do not know something of the story of Jesus. I don’t believe Jesus needs proving.
So that tells me something of what you believe, however, not how you see things…
@@oscarmany1 Thanks, I get where you’re coming from better with that. Thankyou and bless your heart and eyes.
My perspective is that the creator - God - is in all things, all mothers, people, intelligence and thus in our societies. God is thus amongst us and working in society. Most of our values come from these things - the general sense of care and love of women toward us as children, growing up in a society where we know it’s not going to simply be a-ok to behave out of order etc
God is within all this and to feel and see that is perhaps revolutionary. It is definitely the peaceful and liberating revolution Jesus Christ sowed seeds to grow. All we can do is learn from peoples differences and perspectives and grow the tree which god seeded, into human hearts and minds in ways people will relate.
Jesus demonstrated this, in the times when he lived as a man.
Thanks again brother. I appreciate your thoughtful response
@@oscarmany1 Thankyou 🙂
@@oscarmany1sorry to inform you, that you have been misled. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence for the supposed life of Jesus.
2:30 in that case, then man created God, because man created the standards of our moral values.
No, Man discovered the standards of our moral values. To discover something that is real is different from creating something.
@@tayzk5929 we each discover the standards of our moral values as we grow up and live through life. Each of us were pretty much born without any moral values or standards and without anything but a helpless ego that couldn't even survive on it's own in the world. We're born a bunch of socialist communists hanging on our mothers titties and whining whenever we don't have our way. Small children get into fights in kindergarden and later in school, adults may try to break them up, slowly most of us learn empathy and we learn what's good for ourselves and others as well as what's not good for ourselves and others. We learn good from bad, by experiencing it on our own bodies and mirroring our own actions through our consciousness.
We are social animals that form bonds with our peers. We live our lives forwards but we understand them backwards, and our conscience shows us our own evil side and teaches most of us to become better human beings throughout our lives. Good and evil is very much a biological phenomenon experienced by living beings, because being alive can range anywhere from feeling ecstatically good and wonderful, to feeling terribly cruel, violent and unfair. There is no God teaching us moral values, rather it is the other way around. We humans make up our own Gods and then we make up the moral values of our make-believe Gods. In the end all of it comes from ourselves, it all comes from our own biology that has evolved throughout the ages combined with our life experience.
@@tayzk5929 good!
@@tayzk5929 Basesless assertion nothing more, demonstrate the truth of this??
*man discovered God. Or more well put, God revealed himself to man.
There is no such thing as objective morality, even if a God exists, which most likely isn't at all the case. That is because to determine whether God's morals are objectively good we would have to:
a. Judge them by some other standard of morals meaning God's are still just subjective.
b. Conclude that anything God does is good. This isn't a solution because that is just the same as saying anything God does is "Godly", which is meaninglessly tautological. This doesn't actually answer the question of how or why what he does is good, leaving it up to us still needing some other moral standard to judge his by, which still means they are subjective.
If there is no such thing as objective morality is killing an innocent bad?
@@NotChinmayi By MY and most people's SUBJECTIVE standards yes, but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality
@@Shane-⁵²²⁹ begging the question. This is a logical fallacy of which should be utterly ridiculed and laughed at. Dont atheists consider themselves to be intelligent? Not seeing much if any evidence in the responses to this video haha
@@BombBoy96 Kindly explain how I'm begging the question here? I completely and coherently explained how a concept of objective morality falls apart instantly. If you have any objections to this line of thinking, kindly explain why, or how in the hell I am begging the question, or even explain what question I'm begging instead of smugly stating a moronic claim with zero reasoning or evidence to back it up.
@@Shane-⁵²²⁹ "but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality" when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion you are begging the question
"The Moral Argument for the existence of God.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective Moral values and duties do exist.
C: Therefor, God exists."
This argument is neither valid nor sound.
- The first statement is making a negative claim about the lack of existence of a God meaning the lack of existence of OMV. It never says that the existence of OMV substantiates God, that was just implied, and there's no room for unsubstantiated implications in a formal argument. The transitive property applying has not been evidenced, making the first premise irrelevant to the conclusion, making the argument invalid. That sounds like invalidity on a technicality , but that's what argumentation is. If you don't like that, then don't pretend to have logical arguments for believing in God. The technicalities matter. If you wanted to reenable it, you'd need to say, "If objective moral values exist, then God exists." This would still not solve the problem however that the second premise brings up, but at least this argument would have proper form and the conclusion would be necessitated by the premises.
- Objective moral values do NOT exist as I've evidenced in the following paragraphs. Morals are found subjectively and sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. For a thing to be objective, it has to be true outside of human perception, as you explained in your video. The property must exist in the thing, not in the subject. Basically it has to be a force of nature. When someone is murdered in cold blood, the badness is not an innate property of that murder, the badness is what we associate with our feelings about that murder. We have sociopaths and genocidal maniacs, and people who might have agreed with that murder as well, which wouldn't happen if it was an objective quality of murder that it was wrong. We would all just agree. This makes the second premise false, and thus unsound.
- The conclusion is therefor, not necessarily false, but that's not what arguments do. It's more accurate to say then, that this argument is debunked and the conclusion remains unsubstantiated. God may exist, but he'll need better arguments than this to prove it.
Other notes:
Objective moral values don't exist even if a God exists since those morals would be subject to God. For a thing to be objective it has to be true outside of perception. A ball dropping is evidence for the objective nature of gravity in our universe and gravity would still exist even if there weren't any humans around to perceive it. The same can't be said of morality.
Morality is like language, or culture. It's an emergent property of society that's tricky to define so it's most useful to be a "you know it when you see it." kind of thing. Take "murder is wrong" for example. Seems pretty solid, but what about murdering Hitler to prevent him from killing even more people? Now you have shades of grey, right? Tell me you don't know people who would say "He should be killed" and people who say "He should be captured" as the moral option. Not very objective is it, at least not as objective as, people die when you kill them.
But let's assume God is the arbiter of objective morality for as much as that makes sense. Do you understand this God's morality? How is it that you are capable of determining that his morality is objective? Are you even following his morality correctly? If you are, why do so many other Christians disagree with you? Are you going to claim that YOU have the one true understanding of God's morality above others? My point being, even if God's morality is objective, your understanding of it is subjective, leaving us both in equal states of moral subjectivity. You've subjectively said that it's all about God's rules, and I've subjectively said that it's about doing the most good for our fellow man woman and non, subject to the circumstances.
I know it's easier to define atheist morality for us, but here's what one atheist's morality actually looks like. To argue anything else is a strawman and you will be promptly ignored.
“Objective” moral values don’t really exist. So it’s a false premise there is such a thing as objective moral values. You cannot not prove there are objective moral values, that is just an assumption, an “ideal” that doesn’t actually exist.
Take murder as an example. Well before the Bible and ever since murder was an acceptable act for a plethora of motives. Some contemporary examples would be the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf wars. Killing innocents is acceptable to wage war. Call it what you want or make excuses for it but the killing of innocents is still murder.
Or how about in the pursuit of personal wealth? As an example just in America corporations have knowingly sold dangerous and faulty products that have the capacity to kill (and has killed) for no other motive then profit. And for the sake of economics that’s acceptable. Same with contemporary pharmaceutical corporations, selling addictive drugs that the companies knew had the capacity to kill. Motive for those murders… profit.
Down through all of human history humans have murdered other humans for a variety of selfish reason. And religion has done nothing to change that and even has contributed to murder when the Catholic Church supported Hitler, launched the crusades, etc.
Values are always relative to motive. And that reality isn’t just a personal opinion because I’ve never had anything to do with making government, political, social or corporate decisions. As JSRINTX notes a year ago that “atheist claim objective morals is whatever I decide it is” IS in fact dumb because that by definition is NOT OBJECTIVE morals but by definition is what’s called SUBJECTIVE morals, not objective. So JSRINTX simply doesn’t understand the difference between objective and subjective.
The objective reference point argument is so weak. You only move the problem backwards. That is, instead of admitting moral standards are subjective and man-made, you assert a vague standard that you claim is objective but our interpretations of that standard is still subjective. So you've done nothing other than give people a reason to cling on to their interpretation of the standard who's existence hasn't been demonstrated. You've only made it harder for morality to improve.
Morality is man made but that doesn't mean it can't be objective too. We just have empathy and that makes crimes immoral based on any standard. No one wants to die, so it's bad to kill someone. This is reasoning even a child could understand
@@Aichomancer "We just have empathy" why are you speaking for all of humanity? Sociopathy and psychopathy and autism are real. People diagnosed with these disabilities/disorders do NOT have the ability to empathize.
"No one wants to die" the mere fact that multiple people kill themselves every day, is evidence to the contrary. Its funny that you likened your reasoning to that of a child cause it wasnt well established in the slightest lol
@@Aichomancer you would still have to agree on a subjective basis before any objectivity can come out if it. Like agreeing that killing someone who doesnt want to die, is bad.
If God do exist then he created us with a mind of our own, to think and decide for own along with our fellow.
If we are just supposed to follow everything that's written in let's say the bible, then we might aswell be just mindless robots or loyal dogs who'll follow everything that their master wants them to do.
If he does exist and he created us as sentient and smart beings then we must act and be smart beings who must base our beliefs on things that are argued, reasoned, thought-out, we must base our ways in logistics, studies and evidences and not just because someone said so.
Because if the only thing that's keeping you from killing, raping, stealing and all sorts of things is because of a book, or because you are afraid that you'll be punished by God, then you are not a good person nor deserve to go to heaven if there is one. What you are really is a selfish and a cowardly person.
I agree with you except the last paragraph. There's a lot of christians that still cling to certain sins because they just don't care. They hope God will forgive them for that one "little" sin they won't let go of. Not every christian will repent and turn to God because of selfishness.
If that's the case, don't worry, God sees right through that. He can see the motivation and the intention.
I don't believe people just don't rape other people because they're afraid of God. It's because they get their eyes opened. For example I'm not into sleeping around before marriage anymore because my eyes are open now. I experienced the bad repercussions of such things and that's why I don't do it anymore, even though I still think about it from time to time and it's tempting. So it's not just because of the fear that God will send me to hell if I continue to do so. Hope you understand my perspective.
Two false assumptions
First the existence of god doesn’t deem bible the true book of his commands and bible couldn’t be farther from that being written by many people
Second proving there is no moral duty without a duty maker doesn’t conclude people do these duties just because he wants them to
If you show up at the office and work 8 hours but there is no boss or employer does that make any sense for you ,doesn’t it make sense for you to rest and do whatever you want with these hours
Everybody knows you should be nice and many are but whats the point in a world without consequences , you just might be arrogant ignorant and hateful and you are not accountable for it
We are not saying people wouldn’t be nice if they don’t believe in god but we say should they be nice ( does it makes sense ultimately) in a world without consequences and accountability and credit ?
What makes you give money to people when you need it yourself, nothing in this world makes you ! You should believe in another world to be sacrificing that much
This is nonsensical. If God exists and is the basis for morality (the point of this video, which you have said nothing to refute) then that alone doesn’t prove that He is the Christian God who inspired the Bible. There are many arguments showing that that’s who He is, but they aren’t the point of this video.
If Christianity is true, THEN if you actually did use your God-given intellect, with sincerity, then you would conclude that the Bible is true as well. You wouldn’t begin with blind adherence to a book for no reason, and that isn’t what the Bible even instructs us to do. The claims and content of the gospel were recorded into books for wide, uniform distribution, just like all claims and data are recorded. People believe in Jesus because of the specific content and ideas in His message.
@@mustafaalnoori5213
- just used the bible as an example since its the most popular one
- not necessarily but most people uphold such moralities for the great desire of salvation resulting in blind faith where critical thinking and actual empathy is used no longer.
Is it right to believe or agree on something that oppreses other people just because your God said so?
- first of all a job is a consensual piece of work in which you applied knowing the rules and regulations needed to receive your paycheck - very different from life. I never said that rules or consequences are to be dismissed, but should be base on reasoning. Using your very own analogy, if employees are not allowed to move their furnitures or relocate according to their need because that's the order in their office, or when they are required to dance even if it has no connection to their job, are they supposed to just follow it or agree with it? Or should they talk to their bosses and reason with them to change it and if face with terrible attitude or overall toxic environment, resign?
- again is something bad because it's bad or because there are consequences base on just an arbitrary reasoning.
- is murder wrong because you will be imprisoned? Or you will be imprisoned because it's wrong? Definitely the latter but your understanding seems to me that something must have a consequence first in order for it to be wrong.
May there be law or none, may people follow it or no doesn't change the fact that something is right or wrong. And as I said, if the only thing that's keeping you from doing something bad is a punishment, then can really be considered a morally right person?
@@AbsentMinded619
God is simply the creator of human beings, he is what he is regardless of what we know and think of him if he truly does exist. Using the bible is again just an example since the christian god is the most popular around the globe.
This is the thing even for a creator, if one has given you sentience or ability to live and comprehend the things around you, given you feelings, emotions and what not, that creator has no right to just do anything he wants to do to you without valid reasoning.
He can definitely, no one can stop him absolutely but deciding what goes on or not to a sentient life just for the reason that you've created it in the first place is not a valid reason. If I gave you a gift and you took it, that gift is no longer mine but yours to use, If I want to use it or destroy it your consent is very much needed.
I am open to the possibility of a supreme being or deity but what certainly keeps me from being religious aside from the fanatics themselves are the true nonsensical rulings on religious texts that has no concrete, valid and evident origin.
If God from the bible does exist and everything that he said and ordered have their reasons to which I don't know or I am incapable of understanding, then I am wrong. But until I know his reasons then I won't be following those that are ridiculous rulings of him. I won't be wasting my life abiding by the laws of someone who I'm not even sure exist. Because if god from the bible does exist and is truly omnibenevolent, then he's gonna favor those that argue and question things before doing something than those that are blinded by faith.
Premise 2 to this day has not been demonstrated.
Has the objectivity of the external world ever been demonstrated? If so, how does that type of "demonstration" differ significantly from demonstrating the objectivity of morality? If not, then why should we trust any input from our senses? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos The objectivity of the external world is axiomatic, presupposed for the practical purpose of navigating the world. It can't be demonstrated, we need the external world to demonstrate anything to begin with. But it is used as a premise in an argument.
Because we need to navigate this world regardless. So, we gotta trust our only ways of sensing this world. Even if it was a simulation or all in our heads, it doesn't change our need to survive in it.
But objective morality is neither demonstrated, nor is needed for practical purposes. So premise 2 stops this argument right in its track.
To say "we need to navigate this world regardless" tacitly assumes there is an external world. And the only way you could know that is if your senses accurately deliver to you the objectivity of the external world. If one believes that his senses are delivering the objectivity of the external world, then there's no principled argument against those senses also delivering the objectivity of morality, which we experience daily. We know that it's objectively wrong to maim people for fun just as certainly as we know that the external world exists. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos It didn't assume the external world. We are most definitely experiencing A world. Whether it is all in our mind, or we are a brain in a vet being pumped information doesn't make it any different.
I said that the objectivity of this world is axiomatically presupposed. Not accurately delivered by my senses. Whether my senses are accurate or there is an external world are different topics. You can have an external world with inaccurate senses. Which is what reality seems to be, since our senses, while reliable, still fail regularly.
Except we don't know that the external world exists, noone can find a solution to solipsism. What we have is building a framework and working within that framework. So to know objective morality because we "experience it daily" (which we don't even do theoretically, we LITERALLY disagree on morality quite regularly) would be just as fallacious. And we don't experience objective morality. What it is to experience objective morality exactly? To have an intuition? Seems just as subjective. That we agree on it (we don't)? That's just an appeal to popularity fallacy. None of our experiences point to an objective morality.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez It's objective what is happening. But whether or not you should or should not, ought or ought not, to do that, is not. Which is what morals boil down to, whether or not you should do something.
†
¹
*Can You Be Good Without God?*
• This assumes God exists (no reliable evidence).
> By saying moral values are derived from God's nature, you forget that since there is no reliable evidence, any other concept can replace God as a moral basis. Like... self interest and evolution*
*What are the basis of objective morality without God?*
• This assumes objective morality exists.
*Without God, all we're left with is one person's viewpoint. It's like a preference for strawberry icecream. Like subjective morality, It isn't binding for everyone.*
• This assumes people can't come to mutual agreements, much like religious people in their own community do.
• This assumes people can't disagree with God, which solves nothing.
*If God doesn't exist, human behavior should be viewed neutrally like other animals.*
• This suggest that if God doesn't exist, you would be okay with murder being considered okay, like a cat and mouse. This is weird and I've never heard a religious person say that.
*We know the world is objectively real through our senses*
*We know these crimes are always wrong, but is it preference or opinion?*
• *It's opinion based on the selfish desires we have. You are personally inconvenienced when something happens to you that you think is wrong. You are emotionally, physically, or mentally satisfied when you do something you think is right and the opposite is for wrongdoing.
†
²
Morality is subjective.
An enormous group of people can agree with a set of moral standards, but this doesn't mean they are objective.
Moral standards tend to be similar due to the fact that they are mainly used to favor utility and self interest.
That maybe the only objective fact about morality, but objective morality is more often than not used to mean there is an inherent morality that exists in nature beyond human construction.
No action is selfless, despite if it's in our best interest or not.
When we do something because we think it's right, it's because we feel good physically, emotionally, or psychologically doing it.
The opposite is true for wrongdoing.
This is based on our nature, and experiences, and is why different people have subtle differences in consciousness.
This is also true when people have to choose between two conflicting outcomes that ultimately never results in a homogeneous outcome between choosers (Lesser of the evils is different to different people).
A society of sociopaths will be peaceful and live lawfully if they agree to behave a certain way, much like modern society.
The problem is that without a way to reliably verify God's existence, anyone can come up with a replacement for God with completely opposing morals and claim it's objective.
But if all morality is objective, we can focus on what matters: how people want to cooperate.
It is no longer just a feeling when it's codified into standards of behavior, it's morality.
@Todor
Hello Todor, thanks for reading all of that. However, there maybe a critical misunderstanding of my position so allow me to elaborate.
Can you explain to someone that doesn't already agree that poop is disgusting 💩. You say cleanliness, I say why. You say health, I say why do we need health. You say life. I say why do we need to live. Look or smell maybe. Many animals don't have such instinctual biases. Many animals thrive on poop, but it's not very beneficial to us in 3 ways: physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's disgusting because we have a selfish bias against it.
Same thing with morality ⚖️. Why do we define theft as wrong? Because it bothers us mentally emotionally (conscious) to see it happen to people (or do it). Is it Because we want to feel safe. And why should we. Selfish desire. Yes, it's true that we can be selfish and selfless at the same time, for each selfless act is a selfish one.
This doesn't mean we should eat poop for breakfast every Christmas Eve.
Nor does this mean we should embrace the likes of unwise dictators.
This only recognizes that we defined morality, right, and wrong.
The phrases you are familiar with, "objectively wrong" and "objectively right" do not make sense. Here is why:
When I said morality was subjective, that means the phrases "right" and "wrong" were subjective. We defined morality, right, and wrong.
This doesn't mean that a meaning can't be objective. You'll have to define 2 words first: "truth", and "right(moral context)".
For me, something is true if it conforms to reality. It is true that most people prefer not to die, for example.
how would you define "right" (and it's opposite, "wrong") without it being based on desire
For me, there is simply how we should live and what fundamental rules we live by. Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, a special religious code or document. And why should we choose those? I recognize my biases, and a majority of others' fundamental biases on moral desires. But I do recognize those biases.
@Todor
yea, didn't think it would in the long run. probably. Do tell me the false equivalency.
Self interest isn't a justification for any action, it's an explanation for morality.
I see you acknowledged the lack of obligation. This is a bit like when people say life has no meaning so let's all kill ourselves.
Tell me what objective and subjective mean, and tell me what morality means, along with right and wrong. Of course you don't have to, but I'd like to know how you define it. Is morality linked to the meaning of life, and do you think there is a meaning of life?
@@Dragnulls
Hello
I'm under the impression that morality is something we codified to live together in an agreed manner.
What is morality and how is it objective?
I'll start simple by saying that, for example, you wouldn't want to kill a child because it would inflict deep emotional pain on the community surrounding said child, not to mention the mother. But ok. That much should be obvious to a well functioning and healthy human. But empathy aside, morality is still easily explained.
Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad.
A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone.
Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems.
So, therefore.
Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same.
Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly.
It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is.
Very well said!
@@Ab-ju2rz thanks!
The argument here is just a version of the same argument Sam Harris put forward in his debate with Dr. Craig: that the property of "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. Of course, Dr. Craig famously showed that there is a "knock-down" argument against this claim, for if it's even possible that the heights of human happiness are occupied by rapists, murderers, etc. then it would obviously not be the case that "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. There would simply be a fluctuating landscape of wellbeing the peaks of which are occupied by both good and evil people. If this is the case, then what you have isn't really objective morality at all.
Here's the clip where Dr. Craig lays out this knock-down argument: th-cam.com/video/NxwjTcPW_78/w-d-xo.html.
- RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I understand what the knockdown argument is against Sam, and it is certainly effective, and it makes total sense. Sam Harris' argument is like my own, but it is not mine. Mr. Craig's knockdown doesn't work against mine because what makes my own argument work, is that objective good is rooted in tuition of knowing what's action causes what negative affects. It has nothing to do with creaturely flourishing which is ultimately a selfish concept.
Now, obviously when it comes to such certain individuals, it's a complicated subject, but simultaneously there is still simplicity. Psychopaths exist but they aren't simply bad because they just so happen to be so. They are in the grouping of the severely mentally broken. Mentally broken people are people that have met the unfortunate path of very bad development of the mind. Usually and arguably always at the hands of others and their parental figures, in conjunction with false perceptions about other people. Fulfillment of such peoples desires are simply purely selfish acts. If they want to actually help themselves, the best they can do is seek as much therapy and spiritual enlightenment as possible and then hopefully achieve healing, so that this way they can get out of the need to hurt others to feel ok, and then replace it with a life of actions that are actually good for them, instead of essentially just putting bandaids on their horribly deep wounds.
Very greedy people, like lots of American politicians, for example, are very similar. Bad development of the mind. Mistreated and broken down in their youth so much so that they developed narcissistic qualities based on their feelings of being unloved and have been so mistreated. It's ultimately a compensation of loss, but it doesn't make it ok, it's still selfish narcissism.
Thanks for the reply though
@money 1 I understand what objective means. I'm not sure if you do. Cause and effect is objective reality. My call on empathy is being somewhat flawed I'll accept but that wasnt really my point, that was more so the point that most people make, hence why I got it out of the way first. There's nothing inconsistent outside of those two different points. I don't think this is ad populum, ad populum very typically is the "idea of the cattle" for a reason and this argument isnt typical because it is very extraspective, which isnt a very common trait of the kindof person who would rather just follow the crowd. Also what is to steal of theism when my argument is in apposition of it? This is Philosophy I've pondered about throughout my whole life, although I have certainly learned alot of philosophy for the sake of mental clarity, it's much my very own thoughts.
God is Love. That's the answer! Without consciousness of love (God) then you have no morals.
God is love? If that was all he was, then I'd be happy to say God (love) was real!
Too bad that religion has often been the basis of violence. Guess you never heard of the Bloody Conversion or Witch Burning? I love the Golden Rule but most of the Old Testament is dark and tribal, including a documented genocide.
We are evil and disgusting, sad. Only God is good and pure.
We naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
The biggest problem I see in the idea that Christianity is the only source of morality is that morality shifts even among Christianity. For example, the Bible condones slavery and Jesus himself, according to the NT never abolishes it. Some more secular Christians, along with those who were not of the faith led the charge to abolish the practice and some more conservative Christians used the Bible to justify its continued practice. Most of us recognize that owning another human being as property is morally wrong and that has come from our culture, not the Bible. This is one example of how morals, even ones held by Christianity, are demonstrably subjective and evolving in nature. The requirement of 1 John 2:6 is that anyone who applies the label "Christian" to themselves must live exactly as Jesus did. The name Christian wasn't something people claimed they were, but was a Greek slur for the new converts who were transformed and lived like Jesus did. They didn't have to defend the faith, they just lived it. Today, the commissioned report from the Executive Counsel of the Southern Baptist Convention was released. The results are crushing and it took years of pressure from the sexual assault victims and other members to get the EC to actually look into the matter. The findings demonstrate how, for decades, church leaders had ignored, shrugged off and punished the victims of sexual assault who tried to alert church leadership to the criminal acts of their elders and leaders, sometimes rescinding their memberships and booting them from fellowship. This has been occurring for decades and that is just one group of believers. If sexual assault is so prevalent with the tens of thousands of cases like this, maybe the church needs to abandon talking about being Christians and start living like it, as Christ emphasized. "Let your light so shine before men that they may SEE your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven."- Matthew 5:16
Talk does nothing to excuse the thousands of youth who have been the victims of sexual assault by Christians in leadership roles.
The Bible does not condone slavery in the way the word slavery is used today, it actually declares it an abomination to sell human beings like that.
The word slavery meant something completely different back then. They were talking about wage-slaves. People who voluntarily agreed to work for someone for free for a few years maximum to pay off a very extreme debt. It was somewhat rare
Exactly.. And it was a way to keep your family out of poverty. There was no social security system in place providing unemployment or food for families who were in great debt.. It was more closely related to "indentured servitude" and were treated so well in Hebrew times that there were laws on how to handle a slave that didn't want to leave.. Very different from American slavery. ☺️
@@lightbeforethetunnel didnt god kill everyone on earth except for noah and friends? Thats got to be the single largest event of maas genocide ever. Are we really going to use this guy as an objective moral standard?
If you're citing bible verses, make sure to consider its background or context so you will not make your own interpretation. Wrong interpretation results to wrong application my friend
@@markleojagong7413 The Bible endorse slavery, there's no interpretation context or background required. The scriptures speak volumes for themselves.
Good video up to 3:26. Up to there all the points where quite coherent. 3:26 has a big problem: 'human kills a child'. Humanity can account why this is moraly wrong without the need of god - there are many reasons (ie pain will be inflicted in the dead child's comunity, not to mention the mother and the close family). Another one (much bigger and problematic than the previous one) is at 4:07 which points the question if slavery is judged good or bad it is a 'personal preference or opinion'. These two are very simplistic and problematic options.
Yes. This is all a great point. But I think using human emotion as an example of effect isn't even necessary to explain morality. (although it is definitely absolutely viable because humans are hardwired by nature for Empathy.) But even without empathy and emotion, morality can still be explained.
Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad.
A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone.
Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems.
So, therefore.
Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same.
Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly.
It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is.
This video is deeply flawed.
I think you don't understand. Why would it be a problem for me to inflict pain on the dead child's community if there was no God and there were no laws?
@@sherlockhomeless7138 you're kidding right?
@@Halcyon1997 No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I would do it. It's hypothetical of course. If evolution is true, why would I care if I conflicted pain on others. If that would make me happy? You're adding empathy to evolution.
@@sherlockhomeless7138 that makes absolutely no sense my dude.
To say that immorality didn't exist objectively is so false, when i got hurt and feel pain, this is objectively a bad thing, maybe there is a justification for my pain but my pain is real, the holocaust is objectively bad thing because a lot of people suffered there.
boiling alive the entire earth is a bad thing objectively, what makes something bad or good is the amount of pain and suffering that thing cost, without consciousness there is no pain and suffering, without creatures that can feel pain and suffering there is no good or bad so of course we can and need to measure morality by the pain and the suffering of those creatures
It sounds like you're saying that objectivity IS God. And that goodness IS God. Is this what you are saying?
No. Rather, it's that God is the locus of goodness and the ground of objective morality. - RF Admin
There is no thing such as objective morals, because they are constantly changing with time. Stoning me for being gay or parading around a women in a muzzle for disobeying her husband would be morally right back then but not now.
If you can’t change with time, there is something wrong with either you or your religion, and if you are a good person just because god told you so, then you aren’t actually a good person.
Understood. In that case, I would appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into your perspective on morality and assess its coherence. May I pose a few questions to facilitate this?
1. If morality is solely dependent on societal consensus, wouldn't it imply that moral principles are subjective and vary from culture to culture? Does this mean that any action deemed morally acceptable by a particular society is indeed morally right?
2. If moral values are subject to change, how can we discern which changes are progressions towards a better understanding of morality and which ones are regressions? Is there an objective standard by which we can judge these changes?
3. Considering your example of stoning homosexuals or subjugating women, would you agree that these practices are morally wrong in the present context? If so, what is the basis for your judgment? Is it solely a personal preference or does it stem from a deeper understanding of human dignity and equality?
4. If moral principles are constantly changing with time, how can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if there are no objective moral standards to reference? Can we simply dismiss actions of the past as morally right or wrong based on our present perspective? This aligns with the first point, exemplified by the case of Nazi Germany. If one subscribes to the notion of subjective morality, does it imply that the moral convictions held by the Nazis render their actions morally justified?
5. If there are no objective moral values, how can we address issues such as human rights, justice, or the dignity of every individual? Are these concepts merely subjective preferences or do they hold a deeper significance? If morality is subjective anyway, then what is even of the purpose behind engaging with these matters. If we were to just collectively accept that injustice holds moral validity, rendering it no longer problematic, what would be the underlying rationale for addressing these issues?
6. You mentioned that being a good person simply because God commands it doesn't make someone genuinely good. Let's delve deeper into your understanding of what it means to be a good person. What qualities or virtues do you consider necessary for someone to be considered truly good?
Rather than a question, what follows is a counterargument I wish to present concerning moral subjectivism; Subjective morality, although it may initially seem appealing, is inherently flawed and logically absurd. It leads to a self-contradictory position where individuals are left with no basis to differentiate between moral beliefs, rendering any moral judgment or discourse meaningless. If morality is purely subjective and dependent on personal opinion or societal consensus, then there can be no objective grounds to condemn actions like genocide or cruelty. The absence of objective moral values undermines the very foundation of ethical discussions, as it reduces morality to mere preferences, eroding the principles of justice, human rights, and universal moral standards.
mashallah may Allah guide all of us
pakistani bachi reading philosophy
nice
@@mewying5184 28 year old male here...😂
@@mewying5184 an indian by the way
both of ur predictions gone wrong brotha
@@laraibanwar1618 brutal ..the name tho lol
@@laraibanwar1618 same ting
Why do rocks, metal, minerals, etc have no life? And why do organisms have life? The essence of its nature gives it life. This means there is an essence of life, and there is essence of non-life. By this logic, it is possible to have a God. There is essence of life and essence of non-life.
No. There is none good, no, not one.
Morality IS subjective, but since we are the same species, we do have a tendency to reach the same conclusions. If I punch you in the face for no apparent reason I'm being bad, if I donate 100 dollars to charity I'm being good, etc. Each of us only have our own perspectives on reality, that's the condition of being alive and experiencing the world through ones own ego. Ridiculous to suggest that there can be no evil or good without God. I would rephrase it as: there can be no evil or good without life!
"we do have a tendency to reach the same conclusions."
Lol have you not looked at the world? We also tend to reach extremely different and contradictory conclusions.
@Frederick Shull being here by random chance does not mean that there is no purpose in life. I have plenty of purpose in my life ;-) The only purpose given by nature is this: survive and reproduce!
@Frederick Shull but that's not a purpose given by nature, that's a purpose given by ourselves.
@Frederick Shull any lifeform either reproduces or simply vanishes, so that is the purpose. There is not much random chance, natural selection isn't really random.
@Frederick Shull life is good, suffering is evil, in my subjective point of view.
Could morality be an instinct, or a sense like sight and smell? While there are pecularities, most people would agree that stars are to some degree, bright and beautiful and that poo smells like crap. If I say that strawberries are blue, you would say I'm crazy. If I say that nazis did nothing wrong, same thing. It's when a person diverts from the consensus, he is considered wrong.
Maybe the perspective of judging morals is much more simpler than the astronauts floating in space example. We know that the cap on the bottle is mostly always on the top of bottle (given our understanding bottles), no matter from where it is viewed. More over, I can deduce the orientation of the bottle if it has fluids in it. The reference for objective morality stems from the average human experience of good and bad, given that morality is simply a biological response, honed through evolution. I think its easy to imagine, that *right moral* acts are more sustainable that promote human life.
Yes, I honestly think that our morality being a product of evolution by natural selection makes the most sense to me.
Humans are weak alone, and survived though cooperation. We got our basic sense of morality though this necessity of having to work together to survive. The basic question of "does action or behavior x harm anyone" being a good guideline of whether something is moral or not makes perfect sense when you consider of something WAS harmful it wouldn't exactly promote survival and cooperation, the two things that were selected for in our species.
@@Enaccul I commented this and then realized later that if objective moral is biology, it's not objective at all xD
@@pixboi Not necessarily, no. Other social species sometimes will do things that make no sense to us as humans, or that if we were to do them we would be considered immoral.
Take bees for example "If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering". This was a quite from Darwin. The point being that just because something works for one social species, doesn't mean it'll translate to another social species, beyond just general ideas of cooperation etc.
So no, I still think ultimately morality is subjective even if it is a byproduct of evolution by natural selection.
@@Enaccul I think the moral argument works well on the grounds of having this "perfect objective morality", but if there is any doubt about this objectivity then it doesnt. Then again, its hard to accept that if there is no such thing as objective morality, on what grounds can we judge others, or employ others to certain duties? Tricky.
@@pixboi
I think when you realized this, you had an aha moment.
No matter what way you try to put it; if objective morality doesn’t exist, then there’s no such thing as justice, and if I wanted to I could murder anyone I wanted to without any repercussions.
As much as I'm a believer the morale argument has seemed kinda weak to me.
Yes it's true that you cannot have an objective moral standard without God.
But that does not prove God, we can simply live with arbitrary laws that are randomly generated by dna dictating our Morales in our brains, or by society pushing certain moralistic standards.
Maybe if you could somehow document that every single society that has ever existed has had the same morale standards as the 10 commandments you could argue that it's weird how every single society has had the same morale values, but in the end they all differ somehow, and thus it can be explained away as random arbitrary randomness.
The majority of metaethicists (including ones who are theists, even though the majority aren’t) would not agree with you. This argument simply is not taken seriously by actual philosophers who specialize in moral philosophy and metaethics.
Moral values existed before God came into the picture. They were built over time and developed with experience as civilizations grew. However, religion can inspire morality. For example, if you don’t follow the teachings, you will go to Hell, but if you do, you will end up in Heaven. Without religion, even though humans know fundamental morals, they may not be as inspired as they are by religion. But the problem is, does God know everything? Can God say something that isn’t true? Another issue is that religions differ from one another. What is considered a path to Heaven in one religion might be seen as a path to Hell in another....
Objective morality comes from objective reality. Not from some guy in the sky that told us so.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez It doesn’t speak, but it provides information for us to evaluate.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I don’t know if anyone placed anything anywhere apart from ourselves.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez Have any evidence for that?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez The reward is that you know it’s real.
How are you substantiating this claim?
Absolutely true you can be good without God
1:37 misquote,... actual quote “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
It's not a misquote they just didn't quote the whole thing. And I don't think they took it out of context either
@@carterwoodrow4805 not quoting the whole thing is a misquote.
I can't be good without god, just an O
God doesn't decide if you're good or not that's up to you
God is real.😇🙏🏾✝️❤️✨
No it ain't
Yahweh never existed. The idea of a god is an old concept that unfortunately lingers into the modern world
In Jesus name God bless you all and your work to be a blessed to many . These days athiests say there is no God and no evil at all . Even no spirit in our bodies. How ruthless they are unknowingly misleading millions and themselves also mislead . Thank u all . Great such videos of understandings be translated and made into all languages.
sometimes we think we are good but humans dont judge righteous judgement, so by your definition you might be good but God knows your thoughts and your heart and your intentions and he can judge righteously
This is a dreadful argument. There is no such thing as objective morality. I am perfectly OK with that.
Morality is an assessment of human actions. There are different standards of morality proposed. Generally people call things that increase harm and decrease wellbeing immoral, and things that increase wellbeing and decrease harm as moral. That is a perfectly acceptable standard even though this video claims there can't be morality without a god.
Even people who think morality comes from a god use this method in my experience. This is why even though the Bible clearly says slavely is acceptable, most Christians today agree that slavery is immoral. They don't use the supposed word of God as the standard of morality - they use harm and wellbeing.
Other proposed standards for morality are ones that come from the Christian god and one's that come from the Muslim God.
So there are three different standards right there. The video give no reason why picking the one it proposes is actually objective. It just claims it without backing it up. That's because that standard is entirely subjective. Different people will use different standards.
If the god you believe in says a particular killing/theft is morally right, then the believer will likely say it is morally right. So the morality of an action is subject to the word of a god in that view. That is subjective to its core.
Referring to a god does not get you to objective morality. It simply does not exist.
why do all you people think the bible says slavery is ok
you realize the bible is a collection of STORIES
the only "rules" are the commandments
@@Disneydreamgirl33 Because we read what's in the Bible. It's there in black and white. There are even commandments about it.
Exodus 21
Leviticus 25
Deuteronomy 15
Colossians 3
1 Peter 2
If there is no such thing as objective morality then why is murder...bad.
@@NotChinmayi I'm not sure you took in what my original comment says.
There are different views of what morality is. A common perception is that it is about how actions align with what a god does or wants. That is a subjective view. I view morality as how an action relates to wellbeing and harm. That is also a subjective view.
Murder is bad when viewed in terms of what I view morality to be because it increases harm. That's how it is wrong according to my subjective view of morality. Alternative views of morality may say it is immoral too, or maybe even moral, but they are all subjective views.
Does that answer your question?
@@philb4462 Bro you are mistaken God is goodness itself.
Hello fellow atheists, if you want the quick answer, yes you can be good without God, and this video does not prove otherwise, let me explain why:
When theists first realized that they were losing their precious "moral" high ground in regards to the realization that atheists do not need the reward of an eternal afterlife to be "good", they quickly panicked and decided that they needed an obvious answer that would make sense and not completely shatter their incredibly dumb reasoning for being forced to act like decent human beings. So what did they come up with? Well it's quite simple, they decided to co-opt the concept of the "moral good" with an all knowing creator, after all since their version of God created everything, then it makes sense(to them at least) that only they would objectively know what the actual meaning and construct of "good" is since it was "written" into their DNA by their oh so wise creator.
My advice fellow atheists, remind the smug theists that the only thing their respective religions have done well is scare the early versions of human society into believing they had to be good otherwise they would pay an eternal price in whathever version of hell they believe in, which in turn gave us enough time to create a modern society that allowed us to make our own decisions about the inner workings of the universe(based on scientific understanding) which in turn allowed us to give better meaning and realization to the concepts of "good and evil", and that we as highly intelligent animals can decide that living a "morally just" life does not require a reward to adhere to.
Atheists, most of them, are philosophical naturalists who hold that there is no supernatural and everything in the universe can be explained in reference to physical processes.
Atheism combined with philosophical naturalism is a recipe for existential disaster. The formula is simple: no God, which includes the associated concepts of Divine accountability, equals no moral values and purpose.
Under naturalism everything that exists is essentially a rearrangement of matter, or at least based on blind, non-conscious physical processes and causes.
If you were to pick up a hammer and smash a chocolate bunny and then did the same to an actual person, then according to naturalism, there would be no real difference. The pieces of chocolate and the pieces of human skull would just be rearrangements of the same stuff: cold, lifeless matter.
Any difference is just an illusion because everything is based on matter and prior physical causes and processes and thus nothing has any real value.
Even Richard Dawkins appreciates the logical implications of naturalism. He argues that under naturalism, everything is meaningless and based on pitiless indifference:
*“On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."*
*- Dawkins, R. (2001) River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. London: Phoenix, p. 155*
A universe made up of non-rational, blind, cold physical stuff is not concerned with our emotions.
Yet Atheists who adopt this perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their beliefs. If they did, it would be depressing.
The reason Atheists attribute ultimate value to our existence is because of their innate dispositions which in itself an evidence for God's existence.
God has placed an innate disposition within us to acknowledge our worth, and to recognise fundamental moral and ethical truths.
Only God can provide the intellectual justification for moral values that defines our humanity.
This is the Moral Argument for God's existence.
@@moizahmed4705 You do realize that an individual who does not have adhere to a philosophical naturalist approach is more likely to be agnostic, so why you are labeling them as atheists is up for debate, but I suppose that is a question for another time.
The perpetual existential disaster you speak of is inherently on the shoulders of theists BECAUSE they cannot come to grips with the undeniable fact that they need to believe that there is a reward for their strict adherence to moral values AND the fact that they are basically puppets tied to their chosen deity's "rules". Why you people decide to not be puppets when you commit wrongdoings and simply blame it on their "inert" evil confounds me, but hey if you guys want to believe that everything good is because of a deity and everything bad is simply because we had it coming or it was part of a grand plan then so be it, everyone has coping mechanisms.
It sounds like your disbelief stems NOT from our acceptance of chaotic forces culminating upon humanity(as it exists today) through oceans of time, BUT from a deep seated bitterness that there is no proof that a deity put on his thinking cap and thought "they will be my work of art".
Oh I do so love the "nothing matters in the grand scheme of an atheist's universe" argument. Okay let me break it down for you: Our acceptance of a near limitless universe NOT OWING US MEANING does not convey that we cannot put emotional value and importance to matter that has consciousness or not. Will my death mean something to the outer reaches of the universe? I do not believe so, but will I care every day about staying alive simply because I cherish life and because I do not wish to make my family members suffer from a sudden demise? Absolutely. What you theists tend to drag into this "reasoning" for living is that some holy spirit is cheering me on to stay alive, which I can assure you is not, if anything my fellow human beings(and I own a pet, so it's not just humans) keep me going through the "human experience". And keep in mind that I am not even including people of solitary natures, those who stay alive simply to preserve their career, art, or profession. Now what I find particularly vile about your "chocolate rabbit" example is that you are stating that atheists do not have the empathy required to differentiate between the chocolate rabbit and a human being. This is absolute bull** on your part, especially because the entire point of this argument is that Atheists do not need a puppet master to get the anterior insular cortex to process the inner workings of empathy, do you know what kinds of people have no activity in that part of the cerebral cortex?: Psychopaths. Let me assure you, the majority of Atheists are not psychopaths, just like the majority of theists are not looking to go on a religious mass murdering crusade simply to dick measure how awesome their deity is.
Oh look, a theist quoting a renowned atheist(who I can admit can be a bit heavy handed with his criticism of religion, but nonetheless speaks the truth) and shamelessly believing said quote brings credence to his viewpoint. This is almost as laughable as the story that conversion camps tell to their captives about how Albert Einstein told of a teacher about how their own atheism is flawed in regards to the concept of light, heat, and the universe. Okay, so first off, that quote from Dawkins was explicitly stating the same points from my previous statement: The universe owes us no meaning or regard, but that despite this chaotic function of the universe, we still choose to have moral values towards our world/reality(fellow living beings, other animals, nature, concepts). Atheists choose to follow the inner workings of our empathy to create our moral values, and yes in effect this gave rise to religion since we needed an easy explanation for good and evil, but now that we have evolved past superstition, it is time to let the fear of the unknown shackles us to an unnecessary concept of what we call the "moral good". You effectively took a quote about how the universe AS IS cannot possibly be the creation of an intelligent being that "loves" us BECAUSE it is so chaotic and ultimately left to the chance encounters of primordial forces to ultimately decide the fate of all life as atheists see it. You(and all other theists) cannot fathom such an acceptance of said "belief", so you decide to warp our understanding of the universe as a hopeless existence simply because we do not need the watchful eye of a deity to decide our fates.
Basically, it is not our problem that you cannot have a healthy existence without a deity literally spelling out what is good or bad. You don't get to coopt the concept of morality with religion simply because you can't come up with a good excuse for moralistic atheists. Also, I get it, you need excuses to tell the younger generation that you haven't brainwashed yet into believing your nonsense.
@@pitsburg91
Of course you can be emphatic and differentiate between a chocolate bunny and an actual person by arguing “we have feelings”, “we are alive”, “we feel pain”, “we have an identity” and “we’re human!”
But according to naturalism all of these responses can be reduced to rearrangements of matter, or to be more precise, neuro-chemical reactions in your brain. In reality everything we feel, say or do can be reduced to the basic constituents of matter, or at least some type of physical process.
Therefore, this sentimentalism is unjustified if you are an atheist, because everything, including feelings, emotions or even the sense of value, is just based on matter and cold physical processes and causes.
Yes you can give value to matter that has consciousness but that's self-delusion, you are telling us to play make-belief, it like a child who is about to hit by a ball but closes his eyes and says "it's gone now".
Remember, according to atheism nothing has been purposefully designed or created. It is all based on cold, random and non-conscious physical processes and causes.
You are basically saying "I know my life is no more valuable than the life of a bacteria but I want everyone to pretend it is because I don't want to accept this harsh reality".
But the difference is that Theist genuinely believes that human life is sacred but an Atheist only pretends it is when he doesn't even believe that human beings have a soul.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, provides an apt summary of the concept of human rights and dignity-which ultimately refer to value-in the absence of God:
*“Before speaking of human responsibilities or rights, one must answer the basic religious and philosophical question, ‘What does it mean to be human?’ In today’s world everyone speaks of human rights and the sacred character of human life, and many secularists even claim that they are true champions of human rights as against those who accept various religious worldviews. But strangely enough, often those same champions of humanity believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms and ultimately from various compounds of molecules. If the human being is nothing but the result of ‘blind forces’ acting upon the original cosmic soup of molecules, then is not the very statement of the sacredness of human life intellectually meaningless and nothing but a hollow sentimental expression? Is not human dignity nothing more than a conveniently contrived notion without basis in reality? And if we are nothing but highly organized inanimate particles, what is the basis for claims to ‘human rights’? These basic questions know no geographic boundaries and are asked by thinking people everywhere.”*
*- Nasr, S. H. (2004). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 275*
If you find ethics and morals in life that's due to intoxication of religion because such metaphysical claims are absurd and have no basis or justification under naturalism. You only sober up when you incline towards Nihilism.
For an Atheist to say genocide is bad is no different than saying pizza with pineapple is bad, it's just your opinion or dislike which is neither valid nor binding upon others.
For example, I believe that Homosexuality is immoral and should be criminalized whereas you probably believe there is nothing wrong with two people of same gender to love each other.
But the question is which one of us is correct? Under your Atheistic worldview none of us is correct because morality is subjective to people and thus there are no moral facts.
Yet, as I said earlier, many Atheists including yourself who adopt naturalistic perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their worldview. If they did it would be depressing and miserable existence.
You having a purpose to continue your life implies that there is a reason for our existence-in other words, some kind of intention and objective. Without an ultimate purpose we have no reason to exist, and we lack a profound meaning for our lives.
But this is the perspective of naturalism. It dictates that we merely spring from prior physical processes. These are blind, random and non-rational.
Sure you can give purpose to continue your life, be it for your loved ones or to make a world a better place, but denying purpose for the basis of our existence while attributing some made-up purpose to our lives is again, by definition, self-delusion.
It is no different from children who pretend to be doctors and nurses, cowboys and Indians, or mothers and fathers. However, we must all grow up and face the truth that life is not just a game.
@@moizahmed4705 Oh wow, your warped and abstract understanding of atheists is WAY worse than I thought. Your first couple of sentences can be reduced to "because you have a clear understanding of the vast expanse of the universe, thereby accepting your own EXCEEDINGLY small part within it, then you must live a disconnected/uncaring life", which is such a vile, and honestly not surprising, way to view atheists simply because you believe a deity cradles your "existence" into some vague afterlife.
Our ability to CARE and give meaning to our interactions within THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE is not some cherry picked "make believe" excuse that theists come up with simply because they couldn't explain away our ability to do good without reward or direction from a deity. We KNOW that our place within the universe will ultimately not matter in the grand scheme of this existence, but we can choose to give meaning to our lives based on the various processes of interactions from our senses that have been developed through millions of years of evolution. Your argument is essentially that all atheists see what is at the end of our path, and thus we should have no emotional output once we reach it, and that is just total bull**, it's called enjoying the journey AND acquiring meaning on our own, if you prefer to have your deity amount to a parent telling you the story(do good, go to nice afterlife, do bad, go to bad afterlife) then be my guest, but your emotional and...spiritual way to give meaning to your existence is not the end-all be-all.
Hahahahaha, okay okay, so when quoting a well known atheist failed for you(as I explained earlier that Dawkins's quote was about how his study of the chaotic forces of the universe serve as proof that a deity did not create it, and NOT that atheists cannot be moralistically good because of our understanding of the nature of said uncaring universe), next you decided to quote an academic that rejects the theory of evolution simply because it doesn't leave room for divine interaction? You do know this guy has been criticized by other academics who are not shackled by religious traditionalism, case in point: Marietta Stepanyants(Russian Philosopher) explains that his views on the "creation" of current day humanity by means of an omnipotent being is absurd because it offers "horizontal and material causes in a unidimensional world, to explain effects whose causes belong to other levels of reality". Basically, the guy is not basing his understating upon the scientific method, but merely mixing it with his own religious bias. So I ask, what's next, are you gonna quote a flat-Earther next?
Nihilism is based upon rejecting religion BECAUSE you put no meaning upon ANYTHING within the confines of one's life. As I have explained before, and will continue to, Atheists do put meaning in life within the confines of OUR immediate vicinity/reality. We choose to care, give meaning, label good and evil not just because of the laws of man, but also because our evolutionary understanding of empathy compels us to as well. We know that our actions will not heavily affect the fate of the universe, but that does not mean we cannot tell the difference between good and evil. You call it an act, I call it seeing life without the lenses of a convenient puppet master who has to spoon feed you the concept of BEING a decent human being, not just to your fellow man, but also to the rest of the creatures that inhabit this world and to nature itself. You theists claim to have dominion over the world, Atheists who have educated scientific understanding of nature know that we can easily f*** up the environment and go extinct as easily as any other creature.
Nice little strawman examples, okay let's break them down:
Atheist will see the horrors of genocide and feel empathy for the race/ethnicity being wiped out because we have evolved to feel remorse or even pity for the dying. You theists have time and again committed acts of terror simply because a particular region of the world did not believe in the same deity, in that case it was a matter of convert or be wiped out.
Oh look, a homophobe, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, so tell me Mr. theist, if your god is real and is busy with the near infinite complexities of the universe, why does he take time off his never ending job to dictate the importance of which gender takes it up the a**?
Oh I know I am correct, and so do the many Atheists who easily see behind the conniving excuse of coopting the concept of moral good so theists can feel special about their sense of right and wrong. We particularly know this BECAUSE medical scientific inquiry has dissected the inner workings of the brain, and we have even shown that our empathy can light up certain areas of the brain which in turn are the basis of our morals(no deity is controlling us to be good). Once again, knowing that our lives will be meaningless IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE does not mean we do not convey meaning to our everyday lives and interactions that are within the confines of actual control/efficacy. What I have noticed is that you view atheists as depressed individuals who look up at the night sky and feel empty because we cannot affect the cosmos or continue to exists forever in an afterlife, and thus we simply cannot find meaning in our lifespans. I can assure you that is not the case, and only a zealot with an agenda would see us that way.
Your last sentences are just more word salad about finding meaning, I have stated(and will continue to as long as it takes) that we can fine meaning in our everyday lives, we simply know that we cannot affect EVERTHING in the universe and thus have a meaningless "role to play" in the grand scheme of the universe. Religious zealots took the meaningless part to heart and rolled with it, creating a self-serving interpretation of the statement and turned it into their "GOTCHA" argument as to why Atheist can choose the paths of virtue without a deity. I particularly like the "grow up" comment, seeing as how Atheists are the ones who desire a world of meaning that is derived from reason and educated deductions of the inner workings of the universe, you theists are the ones who pretend to have a back-up save file when you die lol
@@pitsburg91
Oh boy you are just waffling at this point whilst having a mental breakdown. Very typical of Atheists when you point out the implications of their absurd worldview.
You Atheists may be emotionally justified in believing your lives have a sense of ultimate value, purpose and meaning but intellectually they are groundless and that's the whole point of my argument which you don't seems to understand.
Of course we can all play "make-belief" no different than little children but since you have just invented these beliefs you cannot justify them and that's the whole issue.
You are kept appealing to "empathy" as if it justifies anything. Again empathy under naturalism can be reduced to neuro-chemical reactions in your brain which is just a natural process or rearrangement of matter no different than a leaf falling from a tree or tornados happening on Mars right now.
An Anti-natalists can come up and say "I see a lot of pain and suffering caused by humans to almost all living creatures on this planet and I feel *empathy* for those who are suffering and *anger* on humans so if we just wipe all humanity then we can end a lot of pain and suffering and achieve ultimate peace which would be the greatest moral achievement."
How on earth can you Atheists argue with such people that they are wrong when your worldview is as much as absurd than theirs if not more? Point is that dancing molecules in your brain neither justify moral claims nor are they binding upon others.
I'm talking about Atheism not Atheists because Atheists are inconsistent with their worldview. Again I want to know if you can justify these metaphysical claims that our lives have a sense of value, purpose and meaning.
I'm not interested in knowing that you can play "make-belief" because I know you can. I see children doing it all the time, nothing special, it doesn't make it true.
God is necessary for existence.
An effect without a cause doesn't work. A cause and no effect is not valid.
If there was no cause, there would be no world or God.
No, it would simply mean that something exists without being caused to exist by something else…
Morals can come from a variety of sources, including cultural and social norms, personal experience and reason, philosophical and ethical theories, and human empathy and compassion. The existence of a god is not a necessary condition for the development of a moral code.
You may be conflating moral ontology and moral epistemology. Moral ontology has to do with the existence of moral truths. Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know these truths. The argument deals with the former, not the latter. As Dr. Craig has always maintained, one needn't believe in God to know that certain things are right or wrong. People may come to know these things via the sources you stated. However, if any of these morals are objectively true, then we need an explanation for them. Since human convention is logically incompatible with objective morality, the explanation cannot be found in humans. This is generally why even atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre recognized that if God does not exist, then neither do objective morals. And, yet, we do seem to all intuitively recognize that some morals *are* objective. Deductively, then, we're led to the conclusion that God does exist. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos This argument assumes that the only explanation for objective morality is the existence of a deity. However, this is a limited and narrow perspective, as there are many other explanations and theories that have been proposed to account for the existence of moral truths. These include human reason, empathy, and social and cultural factors, among others. Additionally, the idea that the existence of objective morality necessitates the existence of a deity is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate and disagreement among philosophers and scholars on this issue. Ultimately, the relationship between morality and the existence of a deity is a complex and multifaceted topic, and cannot be reduced to simple assertions or assumptions.
@@zachio69 literal chatgpt text
@@Bezorgde_Burger my lord and savior
@@zachio69 chatgpt logic comes from humans💀
So your generated comment could even be wrong its not like chatgpt is perfect