The Moral Argument (Needs No God) (William Lane Craig Edition)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Sure, someone can be good without believing in god... but can anyone be good without god? William Lane Craig's Moral Argument for the Existence of God says no, but does that check out?
The Moral Argument
• The Moral Argument
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.buymeacoff...
teespring.com/...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
i had to sit through craig's video in my bible class today. i can't believe i'm being fed such nonsense everyday. thank you for keeping me sane at least
William Lane Craig recycling an old PragerU video. It's almost the same text. The same errors.
I should have read this before I posted :-)
Errors or lies
@@osonhouston Both.
This is easily the most clearly presented rebuttal to WLC's failed "objective moral truths" video I have ever seen.
Realistically, any minor refutation to the original premise that claims that moral objectivity is true would've done the job, since no valid evidence is given. However, as per usual, Paulogia outdoes himself.
*Of course, it is* ;)
Heckling boob - I hear 'Paulogia' doesn't have much an ass to speak of but still appreciates the efforts you undertook to smooch on it.
@@thetruthchannel349 "Nu-uh!" and insults aren't arguments. Did you have a rebuttal, or was that it?
I wasnt making an argument. I was simply offering an insult. Now, where ya gonna go with that genius?
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. Religious people can be moral, but their model simply can't explain why anything is right or wrong.
@Chimp Exactly. And when we rebut Craig we're always picking on easy targets. Yes they can't agree on who an actual expert is. If only theists could get together and figure out their position once and for all.
Christianity does not really feature a moral system. It features a system of obedience, in which all commands of the godhead are considered good, and all resistance to these commands are considered bad.
When the godhead commands you to slaughter your child, then that is a good thing to do. When the godhead commands you to buy children as slaves from foreigners, then that is a good thing to do. Killing homosexuals = good thing to do. Killing disobedient children = good thing to do.
Disobeying these commands = bad thing to do.
Even the command "love your neighbor" is more nefarious than christians realize, because in exodus, or leviticus it is explained who your neighbor is = other Hebrews: The Hebrew man and woman, it states.
oh man I'm an excited puppy! You're awesome Paulogia
It's again the same old trick. He starts with the assumption that his view is objective, pretending to be the view of an omnipotent, all knowing deity. Everything else is just sophistry.
If morality is objective, then god is subject to morality and thus not omnipotent.
So which is it WLC?
Is god omnipotent or is morality objective? It can't be both (but it can be neither).
WLC would say that whatever God does is automatically moral because God did it.
@@grahvis but all it takes is someone disagreeing with the judgement on a given action to make it subjective.
@@grahvis, writes _"WLC would say that whatever God does is automatically moral because God did it"_
Which just means that morality is subjective to god's whim and not objective. The point isn't that one or the other is right, the point is they can't both be right and that destroys his argument.
Either god isn't omnipotent in which case god isn't god (as defined by WLC) -- or -- morals aren't objective and his morality argument for god's existence collapses.
@@fred_derf
He does have his work cut out considering the God of the Bible is a totally heinous character with little to show in the way of morals as we know them.
@@grahvis Oh absolutely, god is one of the worse characters in all literature.
Wonder how we advanced as a species for the couple million years we didnt have this specific god
Paul, these arguments are very well presented. Thank you for these videos. You inspire me to be a better scholar.
Ah, everyone's 'favourite' creepy uncle talking bollocks again.
Or Uncle Joe, Handsy Joe, Creepy Joe or the 2020 would be POTUS candidate who will disappear as an "also ran" very quickly in the first primaries.
Trump will be elected in 2020 and I will NOT be tolerating the crazy loons for another 4 years. Im going to start punching people in the face who annoy me over Trump. You cant be nice with some people. Some people you have to send to the dentist with a check.
@@thetruthchannel349 I'd like to take an aluminum baseball bat to that lice-ridden scabied Shit Receiver on your shivering shoulders. But I'm not a Christian, so I won't.
*You arent talking to me. Now fuck off*
@@thetruthchannel349 Have you always been a filthy liar and child fingerer, or did that come whenb you became a Christer?
ktla.com/2019/05/13/o-c-pastor-arrested-again-accused-of-molesting-7-children-between-the-ages-of-5-and-15-da/
news.exchristian.net/2006/10/youth-pastor-arrested-for-molestation.html
news.exchristian.net/2006/10/pastor-charged-with-molestation-of-boy.html
www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-hillsborough/youth-pastor-accused-of-molesting-child-in-ministry
Of course filth supports filth.
www.christianpost.com/news/church-stands-by-baptist-youth-pastor-accused-of-molesting-minor.html
thecitizen.com/2011/11/06/youth-pastor-charged-child-molestation/
Here's some more of your Filthy Friends.
www.awkwardmomentsbible.com/shocking-pastors-on-the-prowl/
I'd love to spit in your filthy Christerfilth face. Give me a shot, filth.
This video was a work of beauty. Kind and respectful while still straightforward and honest. It may not be much, but you will be getting added to my patreon list.
Thank you! Very helpful on my journey toward truth, deprogramming decades of religious brainwashing, psychopathy, abuse, and utter nonsense. Cheers!
Stop undefining my defined god out of existence, Paul.
The Moral Argument sustained my faith for a couple decades until it finally dawned on me that even if there is a governing moral principle, what Francis Collins calls "The Moral Law," it doesn't necessarily follow that its sole source is an omnipresent, omniscient, sentient entity. Morality doesn't prove God any more than does the speed of light.
There’s another good objection, possibly the best:
Imagine you saw God one day and said to Him: “I’ve devised a different set of moral values to yours. I find them superior. Can you explain why yours are better?”
Consider His possible responses: if He said, “because I’m more powerful,” you could say, “Why does that matter? When Jesus was on Earth, He surely had less power than the Roman government. Does that mean the morality that He professed was inferior to that of the law of, say, Julius Caesar?” That’s nothing more than Might makes Right.
If He says, “because I’m more moral,” that’s begging the question. You could just say, “Not by MY moral code, you aren’t.”
So if He says, “because I’m more knowledgeable,” well… why does that matter? Being more knowledgeable only matters if there’s something to be more knowledgeable OF. So why not just go past the middleman and go to whatever that is?
If Batman does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Obective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, Batman exists.
checks out
@@Paulogia Hi Paul, have you thought about doing a video on divine command theory, which WLC uses to justify the nastier parts of the Bible? cheers.
@@stevem7945 Divine Command Theory was debunked about thirty seconds after Anselm first proposed it. I'm (not) surprised WLC is shilling for it.
@@simongiles9749 I agree it is woeful and repugnant and easily debunked. In fact WLC's deployment of that argument in regards to biblical genocide is one reason why Richard Dawkins has refused to debate him.
Bill does not know any more than you do, dear reader.
Im BETTER without God.... So is Paulogia, MrAthiest POZod etc etc.... Religion pushes people into a LITTLE box of 'right/wrong'.... And noone is allowed to question 'GODS DICTATES'
without religion.....
Love and accept pplfor THEMSELVES becomes the prime directive
1:55 "the circular object," 2:04 "the wheel thing," My dude, that is a space station, or at least a depiction of what we thought they might look like in the 50s and 60s. This one in particular looks like it's a crude depiction of the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the design is in a million sci-fi settings. The station rotates, and centripetal forces simulate gravity a sort of reverse gravity, allowing you to walk along the inner edge of the rim.
To the question about short term pain for long term pleasure and short term pleasure for long term pain, and an example of something that doesn't follow this rule: No joke, unironically... Masturbation. It's pleasurable and healthy. Long term and short term.
According to who, Is masturbation healthy? From what i can see, literature review on the subjects read like catholic manuals. a
The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities
Stuart Brody, PhD
Results. A wide range of better psychological and physiological health indices are associated specifically with
penile-vaginal intercourse. Other sexual activities have weaker, no, or (in the cases of masturbation and anal
intercourse) inverse associations with health indices. Condom use appears to impair some benefits of penile-vaginal
intercourse. Only a few of the research designs allow for causal inferences.
Conclusions. The health benefits associated with specifically penile-vaginal intercourse should inform a new
evidence-based approach to sexual medicine, sex education, and a broad range of medical and psychological
consultations
Emotional Outcomes of Casual Sexual
Relationships and Experiences: A Systematic
Review
In contrast, CSREs were associated with short-term declines in emotional health in most studies examining changes in emotional health within a year of CSRE involvement. Emotional outcomes of CSREs differed across people and situations. Women and individuals with less permissive attitudes toward CSREs experienced worse emotional outcomes of CSREs.
Does Premarital Cohabitation Predict Subsequent Marital Stability and Marital Quality? A Meta-Analysis
Cohabitation with a romantic partner has become common in recent decades. This meta-analysis examined the link between premarital cohabitation and marital stability ( k = 16) and marital quality ( k = 12). Cohabitation had a significant negative association with both marital stability and marital quality. The negative predictive effect on marital stability, however, did not remain when only cohabitation with the eventual marital partner was analyzed, suggesting that these cohabitors may attach more long-term meaning to living together. Moderator analyses demonstrated that effects of cohabitation have remained consistent over time, despite the fact that cohabitation has become more normative.
Morality is not objective. Morality is culturally relative. A similar thing can be said about "good and bad."
I think the theist doesn't realize that the astronaut analogy is a good one, but not for him, because there is no absolute up or down. Up and down are always relative.
The moral argument is the ultimate appeal to ignorance.
Better question... can we be good without Paul? ;)
Love your work Paul
Thanks, Andreas!
I agree with your rebuttal of the moral argument. It was an argument that I was intrigued in, but has always seemed illogical to me for similar reasons, though I couldn't really find the right words for it.
I do not agree with your statements about Mathew 15:
"For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Matthew 15:4-6 ESV"
If you remove "love your neighbor as yourself" from the Bible as well as all commands that reflect mere extensions or specialized applications of it (such as not stealing or killing), then you are left with commands that bear little relation to our intuitive sense of morality. It is instructive that few apologists reference these when arguing the Bible is evidence of an objective morality. They continue to use example of commands that represent no more than reframings or codifications of goals dictated by our biology.
"Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying if something is really up or down"
Since relativity means that THERE CAN BE NO OBJECTIVE REFERENCE POINT, that statement says that we can NEVER determine if something is really up or down.
Since we CAN determine if something is really up or down on Earth, we obviously DON'T need an (impossible) objective reference point to do so.
The problem with equivicating God as just another standard among others is that God, by definition stands outside of the system upon which moral absolutes are subject to. A morally ABSOLUTE standard is NOT malleable by anything.
Paulogia's argument is summarized by the title _the moral argument needs no god._ After all, if the moral argument's explanation of morality was the only reasonable possibility, it would be evidence. So by explaining another reasonable possible explanation of morality, Paulogia demonstrates the moral argument _isn't_ evidence of a god.
Also "absolute" sort of only implies a level of power. It doesn't cause morality to be objective. If the moral values of god are based on that god's, _"personal feelings, tastes, or opinions"_ then by definition they're subjective morals.
It doesn't matter how absolute or malleable something is or isn't, it's still entirely, inescapably a subjective matter whether or not you accept that thing as your standard. It's not about the thing being chosen as the standard, it's about the _choosing_
Logically, at best he can claim from his argument is a god exists, not specifically the Christian god.
16:59 "Actions can be objectively evaluated against a subjective goal. Goal selection is necessarily subjective. It's only the fact that most humans happen to carry similar goals that we have this illusion of objectivity that they play upon."
A standardized reference is not an illusion of objectivity. For example, the length of a meter was arbitrarily chosen to be about 3.28 feet, but it's not subjective because no observer controls that length. If Alice were to decide that a meter seems to be 4 feet long in her eyes, then she would simply be wrong about the length of a meter. Alice may find the Mona Lisa to be beautiful while Bob finds it to be ugly, and they are both right in their subjective evaluation, but they do not get to each have their own length for a meter. Because it is a standard that we share, it is beyond mere subjective evaluation and becomes objective.
People can't just select some random goal and declare that this is their subjectively chosen definition of good, just as valid as their experience of the beauty of a painting. If Alice thinks that killing millions of people is good, then she's wrong. That's not how goodness works any more than she could declare a meter to be 4 feet long.
*A standardized reference is not an illusion of objectivity. For example, the length of a meter was arbitrarily chosen to be about 3.28 feet, but it's not subjective because no observer controls that length. If Alice were to decide that a meter seems to be 4 feet long in her eyes, then she would simply be wrong about the length of a meter.*
There's two parts to this; there is the initial choice of reference point, and then there are things we can say once we have that reference point.
The decision to make one metre the length it is was not objective. But once we have that standard and everyone agrees to go with that standard then we can make objective statements like "4 feet is not 1 metre". But that statement is only true with reference to the agreed upon standard.
This is the overarching point of the video. There are certain standards that we never give any thought to, like "up". This can create the illusion that "up" is an objective standard, but it's not true. It's a standard we all agree on, and only once we have that agreement can we make objective statements about up.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih "This can create the illusion that 'up' is an objective standard, but it's not true. It's a standard we all agree on, and only once we have that agreement can we make objective statements about up."
If we all agree on the standard and therefore our statements about up are objective, then why exactly is it not true that up is an objective standard? If Alice were to have a subjective feeling that up were in some direction, that wouldn't make it true for her. Up is whichever way the standards says up should be, and it can be no other way no matter anyone's subjective feelings.
@@Ansatz66So you're saying that if all people agree on a standard, then it's objective? That's wrong by definition. Something which is objective does not require any agreement as to its validity from an observer to be objective. And conversely, people agreeing on something does not make the thing being agreed on objective simply using the fact that lots of people agree on it.
Once upon a time (not so long ago) I thought the apologist's argument was a sound one. Something else from this moral argument changed my mind about God. I still wondered about this question though, but I could never find a satisfying rebuttal. (To be honest, I couldn't find one I understood, either.)
This led me to click on this video and I'm glad I did. This was very well presented. Most rebuttals echo this explanation, I think, but are either very wordy and complicated or are overly simplistic and unsatisfying. I think Paulogia's rebuttal finds good middle ground.
I also think that many if us (including nonbelievers) have trouble with this one, at least when the bad thing happens to us or someone we care about. We really want everything to be fair, but it isn't.
Man, I love your channel
Thanks, Frank! Spread the word.
Apologetic videos always have some sort of mind numbing music sound track.
It assists the job of the mind numbing narrator, and the mind numbing (and generally dishonest) apologetics they're mind numbingly reciting.
Well done
The Moral Law
Stephen kierein
I have been an atheist for many years now, and there is a component of the god debate that the godly seem incapable of understanding. Atheists reject god for amoral reasons. The "atheists just wanna sin" argument. The idea that we reject god because we want to do whatever we want is a cartoonish sketch of our position that boarders on the fantastical.
So, without god, where do morals come from? The answer to this is simple: they predate god. We avoid killing people because we are moral creatures by our very nature. God is not real, but his lack of reality does not automatically absolve us of all our ethical duties and obligations. If it would mean that for you, you were never truly a moral person as we understand reality. Those who say that all things are acceptable without god are admitting that they avoid evil to sidestep punishment and pursue goodness to earn payment in the form of heaven, then your moral understanding categorically means those morals only exist out of pure self-interest and not for the love of goodness itself.
Human solidarity is selfless by its very nature, godly ethical principals are engeneered specifically for those who's moral reasoning skills have not matured beyond selfish self-interest. Doing good to get a reward is not the same as doing good out of love for goodness itself.
I make no mistake when I push back on religion. We do not pluck the flowers from the chain so that you may live in chains without illusion, but rather to encourage you to cast off the chains to nurture the living flower. Godly people are no more amoral than the godless. Those who believe in him, however, can be lead to do great evils in his name willingly. I have no quarrel with the moral believer. In fact, we have good reasons to make common cause against the amoral majority in basically all religions. My enemy is not the moral saint, but the amoral believers. We do not need god to tell us how to be gold people. We do, however, need god to tell us when and how to be truly evil. Without religion, the morally normal could never be made to murder. Holy wars are by definition a symptom of that disease humanity was born with.
The moral believer is no enemy to me because we are ethically equivalent. The amoral believer, by contrast, are the very same amoral monsters they claim us to be.
I am a lover of truth, so I cannot in good conscience claim a god exists when no evidence exists, and the last shred of evidence that did exist was disproven by philosophers in the 1700's.
Where our moral duties and obligations come from is of no consequence so long as those duties and obligations are upheld. Gods are simply the imaginary friends our ancient ancestors created to justify those duties and obligations they already possessed. In all civilizations, there are certain unifying moral principles that transcend space and time, culture and language, religion and history.
The transcendent component is not evidence for god, but rather it is that transcendent component of human nature that necessitated the invention of gods to explain them. Now that we understand these ethical principals are innate in us and not granted to us, the god hypothesis has no further use to us for its own sake. Believing in god will never make you my enemy. Only being an enemy to truth will make us enemies.
Does that make sense?
Of course you can use a subjective moral standard to objectively compare other actions and behaviors to, but you’re still left with the question of whether or not that subjective standard is right. The fact that we still question the subjective standard shows us that there might be an absolutely objective moral standard. Of course, if there were an objective moral standard, (which as a Christian, I believe there is), there would be no way to definitively prove that as a fact. We can only support our perspectives/hypotheses. Proving anything without doubt is impossible.
What is this objective moral standard?
If there was an objective moral standard and not just a subjective one then you should be able to prove it. Maybe not 100% but at least at the level of a scientific theory where there are supplemental facts that support it. Outside of using god there is not even a starting point to support objective moral standard. I'm not asking you to prove it without a doubt but you have to at least show how its a stronger model to make a case.
Anything that christians can come up with can also be just as easily explained using subjective moral standard. If anything the subjective moral standard model rings more true cause of observations in nature. Subjective morals and the idea of harm reduction and evolution and passing on genes not only takes into account human behavior but also the empathy and morals we see in animals especially social animals. Objective christian morality does not account for any of this and if anything make little sense when applied to animal empathy. With PROOF that animals can act with empathy not 100% based on instincts because science has shown that upbringing can effect how empathetic mice are this makes for a much stronger case of subjective morals than anything thing christians have shown for objective morals.
Subjective morality can't be proven 100% but there are facts that strongly support it. What facts support objective morality?
A a little slight of hand at 3:00. "There is no such thing as absolute down. No version of down for all perspectives."
All perspectives? How has Paul seen "all perspectives"?
You need a particular (omniscient) vantage point over/outside of space to say that. Paul's still the astronaut floating in space who claims by looking around that there is no fixed up or down. To truly know there is no objective, fixed reference point, however, is to tacitly claim a vantage point that only God Himself could know.
I like this Paulogia. I like saying morality is objective in the same way the metric system is. If one can say 'this stick is objectively 1m long' then so too can one say 'x action is objectively morally wrong'. All you need is an agreed upon standard/goal. The ability to change a standard or goal (like say, if people decided to change how long a meter is) has no bearing on whether or not we call that thing objective.
Exactly.
how does anyone take WLC seriously?
For the same reason they take Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson seriously.
Though those too are less capable of hiding their fallacies and plain bs.
There are no such thing as an absolute good and bad. So called morals are merely a subjective construct where the social group agrees on a set of behaviors that will advance the group and minimize conflict within the group to maximize survivability of the group.
Um, actually, "down" is objectively the direction that spacetime is bent towards.
Just commenting for algorithm purposes.
If you were to cut out the part about “objective morals” the moral argument for god really just becomes “if god exists then god exists”
I find all of the philosophical arguments for god to be bad. But they're not equally bad. But the Argument from Morality is one of the worst. Even if I accept objective morality, there's no reason that objective morality requires god. All of the philosophical arguments fundamentally come down to smuggling the assumption of god into the listener by distracting them with wordplay like a stage magician and then springing it on them in the conclusion. if the listener wasn't clever enough to catch the smuggle, they feel rhetorically trapped. But ... do they start suddenly believing in god? I don't think so. All you do is feel like you 'won' the conversation by tricking them. Which...'yay'? I guess.
But the moral argument goes two steps further than that. It simultaneously insults the skeptic AND the believer. It insults the skeptic deliberately by implying that he is immoral because he couldn't be moral without god...something he doesn't believe in. But in reality, it insults the believer even more. If morality only comes from your sky fairy, are you telling me that you wouldn't know that murdering children is wrong without your little book telling you so?
Love your channel paul!
Hello Paulogia, do you have the original 21 minute version of this video? The content changed abruptly. I don't think this one addresses the moral argument at all, but focusses on the redundant point about setting subjective goals and performing objective actions to reach those goals. That tangential topic, which has nothing to do with morality, could be omitted entirely from the video. Of course, the video wouldn't be very long.
In the original you talked about valuing things that are lasting, like diamonds and such. You also spoke of Mother Theresa and her exploits, almost hinting that you were familiar with objective moral values and duties. May I get a copy, please? Thanks!
Love this! 👍👍👍
You down, yo?
Nah, man. I'm subjectively down.
About the argument from 2:00 or so . . . isn't "up" relative to gravitational forces? And for us, the overwhelmingly strongest is from the earth in our shared perspective? Regardless of orientation? Depending only on position in space (and gravitational forces there/then)? If you agree with that, then up is not subjectively chosen, but is objective.
I agree that Craig's argument is bunk because he sneaks in lots of suppositions with his assertion but I don't quite buy your line of reasoning. You seem to get back on track later when you talk about good and bad so maybe the arguments got better or maybe my bias is showing.
Hmm. I'm really not sure you can call the rules of chess subjective either. They're more like definitions or axioms than anything observed. Are they subjective or objective? Maybe. My navel is too shallow to hold that knowledge. I've looked.
Why is the gravitationally strongest thing going to define "up"? There is no mention of gravity in the definition of "up". "Up" is colloquially a direction. And it's this colloquial definition that is being contested.
And even if we were to accept that standard, then "up" would always depend on location anyway. If you were on the moon, "up" would be different. If you were on mars, "up" would be different. Hell, "up" varies on which point you are on the earth's surface.
Because they can't show their god to actually exist independently (by commanding a mountain to leap down into the sea and having it obey, for example) they choose to assert that something else exists and then assert that it couldn't without their god. Providing no evidence whatsoever for any of it. Brilliant!
Something I have been thinking about, is how morals can just change. what once was right just may be seen as wrong tomorrow and vice versa. The best example I use is girls being married really young in the past even in America though a lot of states have made changes to the law, but marring a very young girl was once seen as "good" now it has changed to be "bad" where did this come from? it wasn't God, so it had to come from us over time learning and making changes as we go.
Not that I want to debate morality but the more I think about it, the more i think that well.being could be sort of an objective standard. If someone really genuinely didn't care about well being, why would they eat?
Comments are disabled on original video. #Apologetics
1:58 Any chance that astronaut's name is Ezekiel?
0:53 Any chance that "wheel thing" is named "The Modus Ponens"? I can't quite make out the fine print.
3:20 That's such an obviously circular argument, WLC should give back his PhD. (Of course, his Thesis was on the Cosmological Argument... so it's not a real PhD anyway.)
5:06 I hate to play the Hitler card, but... they really believed it was *Good* to kill Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.
9:26 In hierarchical social species like humans, it's not that simple. Power and *selective* altruism gets you to the top of the (local) hierarchy, and *that* is what allows you to pass on your genes. It's why we're not bonobos.
15:55 But discrimination of the Other/Different is a great way to reinforce group solidarity, which is an excellent tribal survival tool. This increases corporate pleasure.
As always, no option for comments on WLCs video
As opposed to the option to leave comments on Bill Ludlow's channel... that he deletes because hes a scared little rat.
Which part of the population would find the argument put forth at the beginning of this video that God exists valid? I have never been religious and I have no memory of a time where that kind of argument would seem remotely valid. What is the thought process of someone that can find anything remotely persuasive in that argument? Genuine question: What is the point of making a logical response to Lane Craig's argument when any person that is persuaded by it is unlikely to be moved by a logical argument on this subject?
Uhh....are there TWO William Lane Craigs? Because the one with whom I am familiar does not speak with a British accent, but the one in your video does. I'm confused.
The very first problem is that he assumes that morality is objective, something he has not proven. Morality is most definitely subjective. In the past, it was perfectly moral for a member of the nobility to kill a peasant if the peasant was so foolish as to insult the noble in question. The concept of "might makes right" was considered to be a moral argument.
It should be pointed out that the bible does encourage discrimination and abuse of those who are identified as those who oppose god.
You are saying that because you are further along than an unborn child, that you can morally kill her?
@@jwsanders1214 How the hell did you get that out of my comment? For the record, I believe that abortion as a means of birth control is wrong. That said, I also believe that abortion is permissible in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape and/or incest. I'm currently on the fence regarding serious birth defects. As I said, I believe that morality is subjective.
Great video Paulogia! Very easy to comprehend. Thank you! :D
What if your child was suffer and was in grave danger of death. I, a stranger, have the ability to save the child's life through a simple act. I have the opportunity and ability to perform this action, and I know that my failure to perform it will result in the death of your child.
Would you consider it immoral for me *NOT* to perform this life saving action? Would you think it morally justified to *FORCE* me to perform this act?
Before you answer, perhaps I should tell you what simple act is required. To save your child's life, I must donate my heart. Such a donation will cause my death.
So, If I choose not to sacrifice my life for your child's life, would you be justified in killing me to get my heart?
Watching you explain things that should need no explanation to anyone with a basic sense of logic and intelligence makes my head hurt.
I really had no idea that christians were that ignorant and gullible.
The entirety of his argument falls apart completely because of the simple fact that no, objective morals and duties do NOT exist. This explains why scoieties can be entirely of different opinion when it comes to right and wrong and STILL thrive. If objective moral values/duties DID exist, then eventually all societies would have cookie-cutter moral systems and those that didnt conform would die out entirely without passing on their cultrual traits. The only differenct is, he is assigning his own, subjective morality as though it were objective and telling everyone if they dont follow it they arent moral at all.
@Paulogia
There is a tiny channel with only three subscribers and a handful of views that needs some serious help with momentum. I'm not affiliated with him (outside of being his first subscriber), and begging you to give this chap a shout out benefits me none. . . except that it guarantees I will get to see more of his videos in the future. So please, oh PLEASE, consider checking out the channel Mr Bear and his most recent video, "Glen Scrivener Fails to Sell The Bible". I'd shout him out myself, but I just don't have any leverage on this platform. Thank you in advance for your time.
These guys always use the heliocentric earth model
Ha! If that god of his really existed, wouldn’t it be some kind of being, and therefore wouldn’t this god’s personal ideas about morality be subjective BY DEFINITION? How do these religious people not see that?
You should debate William Lane Craig
How frustrating it is when makers of videos - such as the one on drcraigvideos which Paulogia has so ably demolished here - demonstrate what snowflakes they are by disabling comments for their videos. It's almost as if they know how easy it would be to challenge their statements with rational comments. It'll just have to be a thumbs down, then.
If god did not exist…. A whole lot if religions would be out of business,
False. Religions exist irrespective of a God's existence.
If a god doesn’t exist then it may well be the case that objective morals do not exist. They may also not exist even if a god does exist, as the values may simply be the subjective views of that god. Now, even if moral values were proven to exist, this does not prove that a god exists! Frankly, I don’t think either exists!
Why Paulogios? What happened to my trivia question? Ok. Lets try it again and THIS TIME lets see if you can resist the temptation to delete it! ;) - Ready? Ready to test your resolve and ability to NOT delete a comment that apparently frightens you like an unknown rash?
Lets try it again shall we?
*Heres a trivia question for you guys* "This is a comment from the comment section below: - "Bubba Tao: *"Apologetics: Willful ignorance on steroids* ."
*QUESTION: WHERE WAS THE PHRASE 'WILLFUL IGNORANCE' HIJACKED FROM and by WHOM* ?
It looks like WLC has devolved to using Prager U type videos.
Totally vapid and misimforms their viewers.
@@osonhouston Meh, their viewers were totally vapid and misinformed from the get-go, else why would they watch a Prager U video?
3 min in, you gotta remember that Craig is the master of the circular argument, using the posited existence of absolute morality to "prove" the existence of God ... while using the posited existence of God as justification for the existence of an absolute morality. That Craig tries to do both at the same time wins points for gymnastic energetics, but no props for cogency.
Excellent video. Thank you for making this.
Thanks, Anthony!
I discovered Street Epistemology just this week. Great stuff, Anthony!
@@Paulogia
Greetings Paul, I wish to share an logical argument that a friend "Wunnell" came up with during a conversation about the origin of the universe.
Here's whatever he said:
I can't say for sure that none have but I'm not aware of any apologist who has ever provided an example of something that satisfies P1 of the Kalam that doesn't also satisfy P1 of this argument.
P1: Everything that begins to exist is a reconfiguration of something else that existed prior.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe is a reconfiguration of something that existed prior.
This argument could even be made more specific like so:
P1: Everything that begins to exist is a reconfiguration, via natural processes, of something else that existed prior.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe is a reconfiguration, via natural processes, of something that existed prior.
I still doubt that any apologist could provide an example that satisfies the Kalam without satisfying this. To me, this is proof that the Kalam commits a fallacy of composition, i.e. assuming that something that is true for things in the universe also holds true for the universe itself.
...
So what do you think of it :-D
Also known as "The Argument from Consequences Fallacy"
With a splash of begging the question.
I have a problem with 'argument fallacies' ..especially the ones which themselves happen to be fallacies.
@@thetruthchannel349
So what's you're problem with 'argument fallacies'?
Can you like explain or give an example for where in the 'argument fallacies' are "fallacious"? Like for the Straw Man fallacy: when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes.
(Source(in case if you think that I'm not talking about the "Straw Man fallacy"): www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/straw_man_examples/496/ , well there are other sources which have the same explanation, just worded in a different way)
So the Straw Man fallacy is explained, where in it is fallacious? Or if you're not directing this one as a fallacy that is a fallacy, what are the fallacies which you've claimed as "fallacious"?
This God fellow is not doing a goid job making his followed behave properly. If a person followed this God person's morals they would end up in prision.
"brandon roberts2 weeks ago
and god commited several accounts of genocide for"
Ya, well youll get your chance to accuse Him of that. I hope they sell popcorn and offer cushy seats because I really want to watch that show.
@The Truth Channel You really are a raging piece of shit. So you'll enjoy the prospect of someone burning for an eternity with the hypothetical concession that your beliefs in regards to the afterlife are true? How sadistic do you have to be to want that? I really hope one day, you look back on these sorts of beliefs and hate yourself for it
Funny you say that!
Because I've heard Eric Hovind and the bananaman discuss this very topic, and actually say they'd be in prison if they weren't Christian. Idk about you, but I find that scary. But besides that, how will they make it heaven with those THOUGHTS?
@@thetruthchannel349 so if I were to torture you and your family to death if you did not cut someone arm with a knife that means that it is objectively right to cut people's arms off with knives? Also I don't mean this as an actual threat, I'm just trying to show how being able to inflict pain on someone else for not doing what they say dosnt make what they say right.
Well, so did Paul, your point doesn't stand ?
TierZoo, Viced Rhino and Paulogia? I feel like it's my birthday.
Ceeeeelebrate good times come on!!!
Who is TierZoo?
Nah, if it were your birthday we'd have Logicked, Godless Cranium , Holy Kool Aid, Aron Ra and a few others as well.
@@Vandalia1998 th-cam.com/video/BJzJtm7OfdQ/w-d-xo.html
Is overkilling objectively bad? Because you just overkilled the argument. And I think it's good. Objectively.
"Because you just overkilled the argument"
that is a subjective remark.
@@thetruthchannel349, you must be fun at parties!
Objectively or subjectively speaking?
@@thetruthchannel349 sort of subjectively because fun is a subjective concept, however because the chances of you reducing people's subjective concept of fun is more likely than it is to increase or not affect people's fun levels means that many people won't invite you to parties.
@@thetruthchannel349 yes
Yay, another episode of "Craig doesn't understand anything"
GuyNamedSean or Craig knows but prefers to lie
@@SNORKYMEDIA I've never met a Christian who didn't lie easily, fluently, and shamelessly.
Apologetics: Willful ignorance on steroids.
@@LogicAndReason2025 In other words, lying.
Yep, episode 1,078 I think we're up to.
Thanks for the video and sharing it with us. We appreciate your efforts.
I find the moral argument particularly odious because it seems the most ignorant and least humanist, throwing out thousands of years of philosophy, sociology and political science developed by believers and non-believers alike.
As soon as someone says something like, "Atheism fails to provide a system of morality," I'm pretty much done with them. You know what else it fails to provide? A solution to Fermat's Last Theorem, a good recipe for lemon bars, and the $20 a friend owes me. It's not atheism's job to do any of those things. Craig would have more problem arguing against a humanist view of morality so he picks something that by definition doesn't have one.
Yep, it is comparable to how non-theist does not (and should not) criticise the Bible for not containing instructions in automotive repair.
Well, they can't even define the morality to be found in their own interpatation of their god.
Excellent! This is the clearest response to the moral argument I've seen.
Haven't seen much have ya?
@@thetruthchannel349 If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.
If morality is objective and absolute, Zeus must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, Zeus must exist.
Argument from morality is flawed, because even if objective morality exists, you still have no proof for premise "If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist." All we can say is objective morality exist and we don't know why and how. God is not proven there.
@@goranmilic442 *You can search THROUGHOUT the 1445 years worth of Library of Biblical TEXTS and you will NEVER find either the CONCEPT or the TERM - MORALITY - mentioned ONE time. The MORAL argument is a CONTRIVED PHILOSOPHY based on what MOST PHILOSOPHY is CONTRIVED from - the WILL and IMAGINATION of the PHILOSOPHER. So ARGUING the 'MORAL ARGUMENT' is not the same as making a BIBLICAL ARGUMENT since NOWHERE does the BIBLE ATTEMPT to MAKE a MORAL ARGUMENT. Thats why the CONCEPT of 'LOYALTY' is NEVER found ANYWHERE in the BIBLE. Loyalty is NOT based on Principles/Values however, FAITHFULNESS IS which is why you SEE FAITHFULNESS as a CONCEPT in place of LOYALTY as a CONCEPT*
@@thetruthchannel349 Thank you for your second comment. So you agree with me that moral argument doesn't prove God?
@@goranmilic442 *I agree that there is NO 'BIBLICAL' Moral ARGUMENT for the existence of GOD. But this ARGUMENT being INVALID does NOT DISPROVE GOD just as any other INVALID argument does not PROVE or DISPROVE the OBJECT of the PERCEIVED argument at hand*
Omg the old ‘without god there can’t be a concept of good’ what do these people think we did before Christianity
What about places like China or India where they don't have the Christian God. How do these places keep their societies together - for the last 4 - 5 thousand years?
@@td_kdname5197 Craig's moral argument doesn't claim require a Christian god, even though Craig is a Christian. I think the idea is that the creator of the universe has written the moral code onto human DNA. Which raises the question, why do we then require biblical commandments?
I would pay to see live debate between Paulogia and William Lane Craig
Overall, you make good points, but dude, you barely glossed over the most egregious fallacy of the entire argument at 3:35! When Craig says that God's nature provides an objective reference point for morality, he just assumed his own conclusion. Remember that God's existence is the very thing in question here, which the moral argument is trying to prove. You cannot use morality to prove God's existence when morality itself already presupposes God's existence. That's question begging!
Are they still banging on about this same old argument?
You can't have objective morals if you believe in God either, as the morals presented in the bible are inconsistent.
And if you take God as the standard of “objective good”, you end up with “objective good” being: xenophobic, jealous, genocidal, fickle, dishonest, easily enraged, rape happy, and suicidal.
@@nvfury13 fickle, yeah, I like it, but capricious is better.
"as the morals presented in the bible are inconsistent."
The Bible never concerns ITSELF with the concept of MORALITY. To convey MORALS was NEVER the point.
There is a UNIFYING point in the entirety of Scripture. Morality is NOT it.
"you end up with “objective good” being: xenophobic, jealous, genocidal, fickle, dishonest, easily enraged, rape happy, and suicidal."
*Tell me? What does stupid feel like? Objectively, of course.*
@@thetruthchannel349 well you need to tell all the apologists that, all the ones that say that objective morality comes from the bible as the word of God, and that atheists can have no mortality.
YOU ARE A LIAR!
Cake never causes pain!
Seriously, I believe this may be the most important aspect of the current theist/atheist debate, and every adequate explanation goes far in eroding the superstitious fears of so many. This was far better than merely adequate. Thanks.
The cake is a lie.
Well defined and explained with simple terms and observations. One of your best. Thanks.
but can you be good WITHOUT god? lol
@@wellingtonsmith4998 Define "good". Isn't that the point of the video? Goodness, no matter how conceived (i.e. with or without a godly attribute, with or without reward, etc.) is more often than not subjective or at the least something deemed as 'not bad". Slavery wasn't considered by some as "not bad" and supported by scriptures (or by the absence of biblical objections) whereas the enslaved considered it harmful.
@@holybabel2249 yes, you can be good without god, I accept your definition. In fact, I think people are objectively more moral, kind, logical, ethical and accepting without religion or any kind of god.
oh, and fuck the Bible and it's regulation of human slavery and all it's other BS.
I'm an atheist by the way, my first post was supposed to be a joke, but I kinda suck at humor. lol
@Wellington Smith:
I got the joke right off the bat 😂
@@wellingtonsmith4998 Sorry for my slowness. "good" one. :)
This was a very good video. Thanks for putting it together!
Thanks for taking the time to watch, John. I didn't intend to guilt anyone in to it... I was just really tired. I do want to find yours now.
This is one of the best, clearest explanations of morality I've seen. Good job.
Jani Lane?
@@Limited_Light Why?
@@jabberwocky7745 Name of his solo album or planned solo album before his death.
_"..child abuse, racial discrimination and terrorism are wrong..."_ and slavery William, what about slavery? Conveniently absent from your list.
oof,
ya nailed that
Also absent, rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation.
I wonder what part of tying your child to a sacrificial alter isn't child abuse?
We are all slaves to something; you are either a slave to Jesus Christ and righteousness , or you are a slave to self, sin and Satan. Choose Jesus and live
@@jwsanders1214 Can't you lot say _anything_ without a fallacy? We are not all slaves of something, that's a black and white fallacy. Fallacies are supposed to be avoided not baked into every utterance like it's a virtue.
"The enemy's gate is down."
I knew I could count on this community to have at least one instance of this.👍
This is not only a good refutation of WLC, but it is also clearing up the reasons everyone agrees on some moral questions and why we disagree on others, even when no gods are evoked in the debate.
Great video Paul. The clip from Rationality Rules was spotted. He makes a great dissection of WLC also. (for those not aware of his channel)
Yes both him and Cosmic Sceptic (also in the video) have had a bit of a back and forth and more recently on moralities objective/subjective nature that is definitely worth a watch I suggest looking up "Cosmic Sceptic debunks rationality rules" 😆
I am starting to wonder if WLC believes in objective up.
Morality is based on cultural norms which are objective, cultural norms, on the other hand, are subjective. One need not preclude the other and one need not precede the other. You can make a subjective moral decision based on objective morality and you can make object moral decisions based on subjective morality.
Example: Several Christian missionaries ran into this issue while trying to bring the "news" of a loving patriarchal god who sent his only son to save the world. Some cultures don't have the same father-son relationships that you find in the Judeo-Christian Middle East. In particular, there are/were tribes where a child is cared for by the matrilineal uncle; the Tlingit tribes of North America (Alaska, Western Canada) are a great example. The moral argument, that god made a sacrifice on their behalf because they are his children did not ring true for many of these cultures. Much of the adoption of Christianity that occurred in the 1800s amongst Tlingit tribes came more from forced boarding schools than from reasoned argument. That said, why should they base their morality on a cultural meme which runs counter to their culture? They shouldn't and many did not.
Going to church is solely a painful experience.
or do you mean painful to the soul? sorry, I just felt I had to do it.
Agreed. I dont like church either.
@The Truth Channel Yet you sure love bad arguments and indoctrination
*THEN COME ON MY CHANNEL. DEBATE ME. PROVE ME WRONG LITTLE BUTT WIPE*
"bad arguments"
*SAYS a GUY WITH AN 8th GRADE LEVEL READING COMPREHENSION*
If you're going to claim god(s) inform your morality, be prepared to explain how god(s) communicate this morality.
I find myself profoundly weirded-out at 6:50 where Cat Woman says "No" in Paul's voice.
Except she said "meow".