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.
@@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
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.
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.
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
@@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"?
@@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*
@@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*
@@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.
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.
Keep going! You were helpful in my journey to reality after I studied the Bible to the extent that I realized it was a written my humans with no godly input.
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!
@@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
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).
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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?
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.
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" 😆
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?
Craig complains about other people's intellectual laziness, but I'm convinced he has dispensed with the simple act of evaluating his own thoughts and ideas. If he's still lecturing/debating/performing these days, don't be surprised when he begins referring to himself in the third person, which would be hilarious.
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.
One time on LSD i realized that everything i had ever done was selfish and that it was an inescapable cycle... all selfless acts are indeed rooted in self-preservation. I spent an hour or so crying after this insight. But now you've given me an evolutionary reasoning for this xD Thanks, Paul :D
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.
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.
Thank you! Pointing out that even when we're on earth, 'up' is STILL a subjective reference point that we just all happen to agree on initially is the defeater for all of Craig's argument. As Matt Dillahunty said "None of the objections raised about secular morality is solved by adding a god" (paraphrased).
@@nvfury13 Right, but that doesn't change the argument. The concept of 'away from the gravity well' is objective (Though there's issues depending on which gravity well you want to use), and we use a subjective word to describe it. In space, you can still go 'away from the gravity well', but it's intuitively less meaningful because we're used to 'up' and 'away from the gravity well' to be over our heads. In much the same way, the concept of 'maximizing well being' and 'pain vs pleasure' and 'what god says' are objective in as much as we can determine them, but the issue is in labeling as 'moral'
I don't understand how Craig thinks objective moral values and duties exist even if a god exists, they are still subject to the god, who can change what counts as good and what counts as bad whenever the god pleases.
I wish you had addressed this part of the vid at some point. 'God wills something because he is good' is his answer to the euthyphro's dilemma, but to me that just sounds like either there is some outside criteria being used to determine whether or not God is 'good', or that he has defined 'good' relative to God. Sounds a bit like the dilemma itself...
There are some other good TH-cam videos that address this directly. For anyone unaware, Craig's answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to say neither but claim a third option; that morality is that consistent with God's nature. This answer is clearly not a third option; it just moves the goalposts. The question becomes "Is God's nature consistent with morality because of some internal reason (in which case you're defining morality subjectively as "Whatever this being's nature is") or is God's nature somehow defined to match an objective standard (in which case God has nothing to do with it)?
I think the entire conversation is ridiculous and fallacious. Applying naturalistic standards to a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe seems baseless. Its just adding another argument simply because another argument can be made and we seem to accept that because an argument can be made then the argument must be valid and therefore worth debating. Ive studied Scripture for many years and it does not appear to me that it is morality that defines God but rather morality that defines mankind as individuals and in groups especially within power structures.
@@thetruthchannel349 The reason the argument is made is because many people claim that God is good, and is also the source of morality in some fashion. The argument itself is more of a clarification than an argument against the existence of God, but many theists want God to both be good by an external standard and also have him define morality. This has nothing to do with naturalism, hyper-physical beings or the limits of materialism. But I will just mention that people simply assert that God is beyond the natural world, but no-one has managed to demonstrate that he is in fact beyond the natural world. God might end up being proven to exist, but is a purely natural being. That would mess with so many people.
@@thetruthchannel349 *I think the entire conversation is ridiculous and fallacious. Applying naturalistic standards to a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe seems baseless.* How did you come to the conclusion that a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe exists? Or even could exist? There isn't good evidence for that. To me it's ridiculous to accept without evidence that something that breaks all the known rules of the universe exists, but then to apply a different standard of reasoning to anyone questioning your baseless belief. Your argument also doesn't work. There are plenty of counter-arguments against God that you could apply your criticism to, but the Euthyphro Dilemma isn't one of them. Either the standard theists are using for morality comes from within God, or from outside of God. There is no third possibility. *...it does not appear to me that it is morality that defines God but rather morality that defines mankind...* I agree. If you ask any person (regardless of their beliefs) enough questions about what they think morality is you usually get down to something along the lines of "How humans treat one another". But don't think of the Euthyphro Dilemma as being directed at God. We have no way of investigating God. Think of it as a question that anyone pointing to God as the source of morality needs to address.
@@Thundawich *...no-one has managed to demonstrate that he is in fact beyond the natural world.* No. No-one's been able to demonstrate there is anything at all beyond the natural world. That's a difficult thing to demonstrate from within that world. The thing I find must revealing though is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate God interacts in any way at all in the natural world. If God interacted with this universe in any way then science could investigate. Yet we have millions of theists who believe God interacts with them, but not a single one has ever come close to showing how. I find this staggering.
I've been trying to piece together a logical moral framework for a little while. What you outlined, especially at the 11 minute point, is the clearest, most logical argument I've ever seen on the subject. Thank you.
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.
5:30 in chess geek here, I must point out the history. That while we play chess that way now, it wasn't always so. Originally in Persian shatranj (around 700 CE) the "bishop" (alfil) was a two-square jumping piece, like a knight, just on the diagonal (in turn borrowed from the 4-player chaturanga chess of India, going back centuries earlier). Only around 1400 was the modern bishop move popularized by the Spanish (along with the "Mad Queen" super-queen, which formerly was the fers, a one-square diagonal moving piece), and the new "Queen's Chess" was further spread and popularized (ironically and tragically) by the diaspora of Jewish chess players expelled from Spain in 1492. Likewise for those "absolute" morals, which have been mighty situational over the centuries, especially slavery. Like chess, our morality has evolved and changed too, William Lane Craig's smug certainty notwithstanding.
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.
I felt bad ripping on Christian's after growing up one. Then realized they had no problem lying to me, my family, my friends. I'm glad I'm out. Thanks Paul, Aron, Christopher and Seth for helping me find the door, AND the truth.
@Dean B As a Christian I'm compelled to ask:"How did Christians lie to you?" I ask this because I wanna see if they're similar or different from the lies I was told growing up. Like how Pagans and atheists are Satanists.(No really this was crap I heard...) Rap and Rock music were tools of the devil.(Yes, they were still saying that in the 90s believe it or not...) And that's just a few things I heard when I was a kid. I don't think you'd believe some of the B.S. I hear today.
This is really an awesome breakdown. Thanks so much for making it. The only thing I'd change is the idea that some morals _may be_ *universal,* but that doesn't make them *objective.* It doesn't matter if every human on earth exactly agrees with a given moral dictate, all that means is that it's _universal_ and not _objective._ Morals are _SUB_ jective, by definition.
Yes they are ultimately subjective because the reference has to be chosen, but once chosen and agreed upon they become objective because right and wrong can be determined logically with respect to that reference point.
@@BigHeretic No, Douglas, that's not how it works. Even the morality of something, regardless of reference, is still subjective. It's how we *_FEEL_* about a given act, personally. It is an individual thing, making it subjective. Morals are ultimately based on an individual's sympathy, empathy, and compassion. An *_INDIVIDUAL'S_* sympathy, empathy, and compassion. It's about *_FEELINGS._* As I said, it is *_BY DEFINITION_* subjective.
@@BigHeretic It's also about what IS, not what AUGHT to be. We can justify the AUGHT of morality in an objective way, but we can't define the IS objectively. For example, would you say it's perfectly moral for a brother and sister to get married and have sex? If not, why not?
@@dienekes4364 If it is agreed upon that the goal is wellbeing then there are only so many ways that it can be achieved and is no longer subjective. The agreed upon moral is situational, not emotional. 1:30 The astronaut has chosen the reference point of the Earth and has designated an 'up' and a 'down'. Now objects can objectively be described as up or down according to the agreed upon reference point. If we agree that stealing is morally wrong because it leads to harm and discord, that is not emotional, it is based in logic and reason and is objectively a sound moral with respect to the agreed upon goal of wellbeing.
@@BigHeretic _"If it is agreed upon that the goal is wellbeing then there are only so many ways that it can be achieved"_ -- Well, this is where you go off the rails. "well being" is an extremely ambiguous term. Well being for whom? Who gets to take priority? The sick? The strong? The wealthy? The impoverished? Well being for some may not be well being for others. What even constitutes well being is subjective. Also, the fact that you said "so many ways" makes your statement inconsistent. If there are multiple ways and people have their opinions about which way is better, that proves subjectivity. _"The agreed upon moral is situational, not emotional."_ -- No, it's not. What AUGHT to be may be less subjective, but it's still subjective. Once again, it doesn't matter if every person in the entire world who have ever lived agrees on some moral precept, that STILL doesn't make it objective. Universal and objective are two completely different things. So, morals are SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION, even yours.
@@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.
I find it easy enough to debunk personally for the pure and simple fact that there are no "ultimate" objective morals. Morals come in two flavours: - Subjective morals with a subjective basis - Objective morals with a subjective basis You can make objective moral pronouncements within a subjective framework, but ultimately, it's _all_ subjective. The problem here isn't _that_ morals are subjective, the problem is that some people think that morals being subjective is a _bad_ thing.
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.
9:33 Haaa! Someone finally hit the nail on the head! Our current moral system is because it makes the human species more fit for survival. A basic evolution rule.
"TorianTammas1 week ago Steve Warrens - A PhD in theology is as good as one in unicorn studies." *So are you saying that a person with a degree from a Bible College should NOT be allowed to have influence in matters of science and should have no say on an academic level concerning scientific issues?*
"rationalguy2 weeks ago It's like a diploma from Hogwarts. He memorized the spells and fairy tales, then learned to make crackpot arguments about them" Hmmm... Well, if you believe that then why are there so many atheists with youtube channels that have hours and hours of video devoted to the Bible?
This philosophers trying to word play their god into existence malarkey is utterly ridiculous. Grown men (mostly) are really like, if I say that X requires God, then make assertions about X being because of God, I can conclude that God exists! Wheee. I did it.. Did it work? Uh, maybe if I can get a few people to accept this argument, it'll make my God exist... Paul does a fantastic job of deconstructing WLC's video here. It was a great idea to establish the main terms at the beginning, it's a lot easier to see where word trickery is being employed. I also have to say I respect how much of a better person than I, that Paul is; when it comes to apologists, particularly WLC, I am incapable of keeping the snark at bay.
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
Giday Paul, @ 14:41 I first thought u said ‘eating goldfish’ & in my state of confusion laughed really loud Police were not called, as I do this often... u guys r th best!! Science Bless
I did a screenshot of your comment because someone just left a comment on a different video refuting that people elevate science into anything higher than a dependable method used to interpret the natural universe. I guess I should thank you. Im not going to... but I guess I should.
The fact that this moral lawgiver condones slavery, commands genocide and promotes misogyny; not to mention that morals change as societies evolve (eg. abortion and homosexuality) completely obliterates any argument that the god of the bible is an objective moral lawgiver.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez has the Iliad changed? Has Hamlet changed? So what. Your argument in no way refutes my statement. Did the bible forbid homosexuality and call for them to be stoned to death? Did the bible condone the owning of other human beings? Those things have changed in modern societies. When was the last time you ate shrimp?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez there were earlier and better codes than this. Thank goodness your code was never enshrined in the constitution. Otherwise we'd have mandated prayer and no sports on Sunday. I guess the morals encoded there have changed. Also the real human laws of not lying or killing or stealing can all be more easily explained by the evolution of humans successfully living in groups. Do all the other levitical laws count?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I think "honoring" may be a wee overstatement. Societies have those laws so societies can function, not out of some adoration of the commandments. Check out any society other than Judeo Christian ones. Japanese society is said to be the most law abiding and they are not christian. Hindu societies, muslim societies,Sikh, choose any religion and that society will have laws against lying, stealing and killing. The ten commandments aren't some divinely inspired code. They are how all societies make laws to function successfully. So I think its safe to say that close to the entire world population is using laws against lying stealing killing cheating. I don't think you can say they are all doing that to honor the ten commandments. Maybe you are in the minority, saying you are doing them as some kind of honoring of gods divinely inspired laws. I guess you will own slaves and treat women as property too.
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.
"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.
Regarding premise 1, even if gods did exist, choosing them as moral standards makes it subjective, and/or subjective to their will. Thus yet another nail in that coffin.
Assumption 1: god exists. Assumption 2: god is good, not evil. Assumption 3: WLC is not talking bollocks. If any of those assumptions is wrong, his conclusion is wrong. All of those assumptions are wrong.
@Phillip Hickman You can't prove anything to somebody who isn't biased, either. You *do not have* objectively-verifiable evidence for your claims. All you have are unfounded assertions. Sure, people who are as deluded and gullible as you will believe the same assertions that you do. Not all of us are that fucktarded.
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.
Re. the points from 10:30: 1. This needs to more specific. Not all evaluations of the benefit of actions/decisions are in the 'morality' category. Utility / consequence, sure; but what about virtue ethics? 2. Best to avoid the word 'objectively' altogether to avoid equivocation issues. 3. Perhaps 'sentient' would be more precise (instead of 'conscious'). Also, this point ignores the 'existence' question... i.e. in some scenarios, being is preferable to well-being. 4. Agreed. And now there is question of the pleasures/pains of competing groups. 5. Agreed. Mostly. 6. As with point 3. 'existence' goals can override 'pleasure/pain' goals and as with point 4. Autonomy Ethics may override Community Ethics. Conclusion: Agreed: "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" -- Laplace.
I must say I enjoyed this far more on a second viewing. The clarity of the arguments and their structure came through much more. This however was nothing to do with the video it was only me. Excellent work
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.
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.
Even better when ole Bill deletes your comments because hes terrified of any and all information that conflicts with those things he just desires to believe because he desires to believe them ;) -
If what WLC says is true, then it's also true that his god has no objective morality or even value, since there is no "transcendent" being to provide such objectively;)
Sonething that has struck me about this moral argument: If there is a moral code that is fixed by God and based upon his nature, then why is the response to difficult questions like "why would God seem to step in and answer prayer for some people and let others suffer?" "what makes God's actions in the Bible toward Job okay?", and "why would God order genocide in the Bible?" that God works in mysterious ways and sometimes we don't understand his ways or his plan? That would mean that what we understand as morality and "good" or "bad" doesn't always apply to God. So does morality come from God's very nature or is he above it?
Let's say you have a fine that must be paid or else prison and the judge lets someone else pay thay fine for you at no cost to you wouldnt that be justice for the penalty presented by the fine being paid or else but mercy as the judge lets the fine go unpaid by you as long as it was paid. Justice and mercy at once.
Do you know what the luminiferous aether and the abrahamic god's moral code have in common? Both were once believed to be a true privileged frame of reference
A useful read on the layers of reciprocity is Martin Nowak,'s 2011 "Super Cooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed." Direct reciprocity pervades biological life (doesn't even require a brain), but the advent of human language elevated that to indirect reciprocity level, where reputations expand the dynamic of interaction.
Aww! No fair! I was waiting for a visit from Dana Garvey's Church Lady! "Were your nether regions too engorged and tingling because of, oh, I don't know... SATAN!" 😈😜
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.
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.
So you had that clip of Michelle Pfeiffer going "meow" from Batman Returns, and I had to stop your video and go watch that scene several times because that was my whole sexual awakening as a teen girl right there...
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
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 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 ?
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?
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
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"?
Thanks for the video and sharing it with us. We appreciate your efforts.
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*
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
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.
Keep going! You were helpful in my journey to reality after I studied the Bible to the extent that I realized it was a written my humans with no godly input.
Thank for for the kinds words. So glad to have played a small part.
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.
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.
oh man I'm an excited puppy! You're awesome Paulogia
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.
@@Never-mind1960 In other words, lying.
Yep, episode 1,078 I think we're up to.
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!
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. :)
Well, they can't even define the morality to be found in their own interpatation of their god.
I would pay to see live debate between Paulogia and William Lane Craig
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
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.
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?
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.
I love your logic and clarity. You're doing a fantastic job of laying bare the holes in Christian arguments. Keep up the good work!
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 find myself profoundly weirded-out at 6:50 where Cat Woman says "No" in Paul's voice.
Except she said "meow".
"The enemy's gate is down."
I knew I could count on this community to have at least one instance of this.👍
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?
Paul, these arguments are very well presented. Thank you for these videos. You inspire me to be a better scholar.
Craig complains about other people's intellectual laziness, but I'm convinced he has dispensed with the simple act of evaluating his own thoughts and ideas. If he's still lecturing/debating/performing these days, don't be surprised when he begins referring to himself in the third person, which would be hilarious.
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.
One time on LSD i realized that everything i had ever done was selfish and that it was an inescapable cycle... all selfless acts are indeed rooted in self-preservation. I spent an hour or so crying after this insight.
But now you've given me an evolutionary reasoning for this xD
Thanks, Paul :D
Enjoyable and educational as always. Thanks.
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.
Stop undefining my defined god out of existence, Paul.
Still waiting for the next Ham and AiG news so we can hear you talk about the whole insurance lawsuit 😂
Polaris And chips! You can’t have ham and egg without chips! 😋
Next episode.... shhh.
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.
Thank you! Very helpful on my journey toward truth, deprogramming decades of religious brainwashing, psychopathy, abuse, and utter nonsense. Cheers!
Thank you! Pointing out that even when we're on earth, 'up' is STILL a subjective reference point that we just all happen to agree on initially is the defeater for all of Craig's argument. As Matt Dillahunty said "None of the objections raised about secular morality is solved by adding a god" (paraphrased).
But, up is away from the center of the gravity well...
@@nvfury13 according to how we've communally defined 'up'.
Michael Gorka Yes, the arbitrary word that describes an objective concept is subjective, that doesn’t make the concept subjective.
@@nvfury13 Right, but that doesn't change the argument. The concept of 'away from the gravity well' is objective (Though there's issues depending on which gravity well you want to use), and we use a subjective word to describe it. In space, you can still go 'away from the gravity well', but it's intuitively less meaningful because we're used to 'up' and 'away from the gravity well' to be over our heads.
In much the same way, the concept of 'maximizing well being' and 'pain vs pleasure' and 'what god says' are objective in as much as we can determine them, but the issue is in labeling as 'moral'
A *Matt Dillahunty* quote, always a win.
One of your best videos. Excellent, discourse.
Agreed!
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*
I don't understand how Craig thinks objective moral values and duties exist even if a god exists, they are still subject to the god, who can change what counts as good and what counts as bad whenever the god pleases.
I wish you had addressed this part of the vid at some point.
'God wills something because he is good' is his answer to the euthyphro's dilemma, but to me that just sounds like either there is some outside criteria being used to determine whether or not God is 'good', or that he has defined 'good' relative to God. Sounds a bit like the dilemma itself...
There are some other good TH-cam videos that address this directly.
For anyone unaware, Craig's answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to say neither but claim a third option; that morality is that consistent with God's nature. This answer is clearly not a third option; it just moves the goalposts. The question becomes "Is God's nature consistent with morality because of some internal reason (in which case you're defining morality subjectively as "Whatever this being's nature is") or is God's nature somehow defined to match an objective standard (in which case God has nothing to do with it)?
I think the entire conversation is ridiculous and fallacious. Applying naturalistic standards to a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe seems baseless.
Its just adding another argument simply because another argument can be made and we seem to accept that because an argument can be made then the argument must be valid and therefore worth debating. Ive studied Scripture for many years and it does not appear to me that it is morality that defines God but rather morality that defines mankind as individuals and in groups especially within power structures.
@@thetruthchannel349 The reason the argument is made is because many people claim that God is good, and is also the source of morality in some fashion. The argument itself is more of a clarification than an argument against the existence of God, but many theists want God to both be good by an external standard and also have him define morality. This has nothing to do with naturalism, hyper-physical beings or the limits of materialism.
But I will just mention that people simply assert that God is beyond the natural world, but no-one has managed to demonstrate that he is in fact beyond the natural world. God might end up being proven to exist, but is a purely natural being. That would mess with so many people.
@@thetruthchannel349 *I think the entire conversation is ridiculous and fallacious. Applying naturalistic standards to a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe seems baseless.*
How did you come to the conclusion that a hyper-physical being not constrained or prohibited by the boundaries of the material universe exists? Or even could exist?
There isn't good evidence for that. To me it's ridiculous to accept without evidence that something that breaks all the known rules of the universe exists, but then to apply a different standard of reasoning to anyone questioning your baseless belief.
Your argument also doesn't work. There are plenty of counter-arguments against God that you could apply your criticism to, but the Euthyphro Dilemma isn't one of them. Either the standard theists are using for morality comes from within God, or from outside of God. There is no third possibility.
*...it does not appear to me that it is morality that defines God but rather morality that defines mankind...*
I agree. If you ask any person (regardless of their beliefs) enough questions about what they think morality is you usually get down to something along the lines of "How humans treat one another".
But don't think of the Euthyphro Dilemma as being directed at God. We have no way of investigating God. Think of it as a question that anyone pointing to God as the source of morality needs to address.
@@Thundawich *...no-one has managed to demonstrate that he is in fact beyond the natural world.*
No. No-one's been able to demonstrate there is anything at all beyond the natural world. That's a difficult thing to demonstrate from within that world.
The thing I find must revealing though is that no one has ever been able to demonstrate God interacts in any way at all in the natural world. If God interacted with this universe in any way then science could investigate. Yet we have millions of theists who believe God interacts with them, but not a single one has ever come close to showing how. I find this staggering.
I've been trying to piece together a logical moral framework for a little while. What you outlined, especially at the 11 minute point, is the clearest, most logical argument I've ever seen on the subject. Thank you.
Check out the videos between Cosmic Skeptic and Rationality Rules on the subject. I think you'll find they help solidify your thinking on the subject.
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.
5:30 in chess geek here, I must point out the history. That while we play chess that way now, it wasn't always so. Originally in Persian shatranj (around 700 CE) the "bishop" (alfil) was a two-square jumping piece, like a knight, just on the diagonal (in turn borrowed from the 4-player chaturanga chess of India, going back centuries earlier). Only around 1400 was the modern bishop move popularized by the Spanish (along with the "Mad Queen" super-queen, which formerly was the fers, a one-square diagonal moving piece), and the new "Queen's Chess" was further spread and popularized (ironically and tragically) by the diaspora of Jewish chess players expelled from Spain in 1492. Likewise for those "absolute" morals, which have been mighty situational over the centuries, especially slavery. Like chess, our morality has evolved and changed too, William Lane Craig's smug certainty notwithstanding.
All this talk about reference points. "The enemy's gate is down."
I had an ad for “PureFlix” starring Kevin Sorbo for this video. Just love that.
I threw up just a little.
Excellent video! I almost want to give you a free print of my art.
Dew it!
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.
I felt bad ripping on Christian's after growing up one. Then realized they had no problem lying to me, my family, my friends. I'm glad I'm out. Thanks Paul, Aron, Christopher and Seth for helping me find the door, AND the truth.
@Dean B
As a Christian I'm compelled to ask:"How did Christians lie to you?"
I ask this because I wanna see if they're similar or different from the lies I was told growing up. Like how Pagans and atheists are Satanists.(No really this was crap I heard...) Rap and Rock music were tools of the devil.(Yes, they were still saying that in the 90s believe it or not...) And that's just a few things I heard when I was a kid. I don't think you'd believe some of the B.S. I hear today.
Even if a God does exist, then how does that make any moral value objective?
This is really an awesome breakdown. Thanks so much for making it. The only thing I'd change is the idea that some morals _may be_ *universal,* but that doesn't make them *objective.* It doesn't matter if every human on earth exactly agrees with a given moral dictate, all that means is that it's _universal_ and not _objective._ Morals are _SUB_ jective, by definition.
Yes they are ultimately subjective because the reference has to be chosen, but once chosen and agreed upon they become objective because right and wrong can be determined logically with respect to that reference point.
@@BigHeretic No, Douglas, that's not how it works. Even the morality of something, regardless of reference, is still subjective. It's how we *_FEEL_* about a given act, personally. It is an individual thing, making it subjective. Morals are ultimately based on an individual's sympathy, empathy, and compassion. An *_INDIVIDUAL'S_* sympathy, empathy, and compassion. It's about *_FEELINGS._* As I said, it is *_BY DEFINITION_* subjective.
@@BigHeretic It's also about what IS, not what AUGHT to be. We can justify the AUGHT of morality in an objective way, but we can't define the IS objectively. For example, would you say it's perfectly moral for a brother and sister to get married and have sex? If not, why not?
@@dienekes4364 If it is agreed upon that the goal is wellbeing then there are only so many ways that it can be achieved and is no longer subjective. The agreed upon moral is situational, not emotional.
1:30 The astronaut has chosen the reference point of the Earth and has designated an 'up' and a 'down'. Now objects can objectively be described as up or down according to the agreed upon reference point.
If we agree that stealing is morally wrong because it leads to harm and discord, that is not emotional, it is based in logic and reason and is objectively a sound moral with respect to the agreed upon goal of wellbeing.
@@BigHeretic _"If it is agreed upon that the goal is wellbeing then there are only so many ways that it can be achieved"_ -- Well, this is where you go off the rails. "well being" is an extremely ambiguous term. Well being for whom? Who gets to take priority? The sick? The strong? The wealthy? The impoverished? Well being for some may not be well being for others. What even constitutes well being is subjective.
Also, the fact that you said "so many ways" makes your statement inconsistent. If there are multiple ways and people have their opinions about which way is better, that proves subjectivity.
_"The agreed upon moral is situational, not emotional."_ -- No, it's not. What AUGHT to be may be less subjective, but it's still subjective.
Once again, it doesn't matter if every person in the entire world who have ever lived agrees on some moral precept, that STILL doesn't make it objective. Universal and objective are two completely different things.
So, morals are SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION, even yours.
If you're going to claim god(s) inform your morality, be prepared to explain how god(s) communicate this morality.
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.
I find it easy enough to debunk personally for the pure and simple fact that there are no "ultimate" objective morals. Morals come in two flavours:
- Subjective morals with a subjective basis
- Objective morals with a subjective basis
You can make objective moral pronouncements within a subjective framework, but ultimately, it's _all_ subjective. The problem here isn't _that_ morals are subjective, the problem is that some people think that morals being subjective is a _bad_ thing.
I am starting to wonder if WLC believes in objective up.
I loved that show "Corner Gas" Love that you included it in your video :)
I was hoping someone would recognize it.
_"..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.
9:33 Haaa! Someone finally hit the nail on the head! Our current moral system is because it makes the human species more fit for survival. A basic evolution rule.
Is Craig's PhD legitimate? Are any of the PhDs from religious institutions worth the paper they are printed on?
It's like a diploma from Hogwarts. He memorized the spells and fairy tales, then learned to make crackpot arguments about them.
Yes he has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Birmingham
Steve Warrens - A PhD in theology is as good as one in unicorn studies.
"TorianTammas1 week ago
Steve Warrens - A PhD in theology is as good as one in unicorn studies."
*So are you saying that a person with a degree from a Bible College should NOT be allowed to have influence in matters of science and should have no say on an academic level concerning scientific
issues?*
"rationalguy2 weeks ago
It's like a diploma from Hogwarts. He memorized the spells and fairy tales, then learned to make crackpot arguments about them"
Hmmm... Well, if you believe that then why are there so many atheists with youtube channels that have hours and hours of video devoted to the Bible?
This philosophers trying to word play their god into existence malarkey is utterly ridiculous. Grown men (mostly) are really like, if I say that X requires God, then make assertions about X being because of God, I can conclude that God exists! Wheee. I did it.. Did it work? Uh, maybe if I can get a few people to accept this argument, it'll make my God exist...
Paul does a fantastic job of deconstructing WLC's video here. It was a great idea to establish the main terms at the beginning, it's a lot easier to see where word trickery is being employed. I also have to say I respect how much of a better person than I, that Paul is; when it comes to apologists, particularly WLC, I am incapable of keeping the snark at bay.
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
Giday Paul, @ 14:41 I first thought u said ‘eating goldfish’ & in my state of confusion laughed really loud
Police were not called, as I do this often... u guys r th best!!
Science Bless
I did a screenshot of your comment because someone just left a comment on a different video refuting that people elevate science into anything higher than a dependable method used to interpret the natural universe. I guess I should thank you. Im not going to... but I guess I should.
The Truth Channel
Not really sure wat u meant tho way I read it...
Haahaahaa 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Science Bless"
BUT BUT BUT PAUL
MY SIMPLE BRAIN DOESN'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEXITY AND NUANCE
The fact that this moral lawgiver condones slavery, commands genocide and promotes misogyny; not to mention that morals change as societies evolve (eg. abortion and homosexuality) completely obliterates any argument that the god of the bible is an objective moral lawgiver.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez has the Iliad changed? Has Hamlet changed? So what. Your argument in no way refutes my statement. Did the bible forbid homosexuality and call for them to be stoned to death? Did the bible condone the owning of other human beings? Those things have changed in modern societies. When was the last time you ate shrimp?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez which version of the ten commandments?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez there were earlier and better codes than this. Thank goodness your code was never enshrined in the constitution. Otherwise we'd have mandated prayer and no sports on Sunday. I guess the morals encoded there have changed.
Also the real human laws of not lying or killing or stealing can all be more easily explained by the evolution of humans successfully living in groups.
Do all the other levitical laws count?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez society's dependence on them has.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I think "honoring" may be a wee overstatement. Societies have those laws so societies can function, not out of some adoration of the commandments. Check out any society other than Judeo Christian ones. Japanese society is said to be the most law abiding and they are not christian. Hindu societies, muslim societies,Sikh, choose any religion and that society will have laws against lying, stealing and killing. The ten commandments aren't some divinely inspired code. They are how all societies make laws to function successfully.
So I think its safe to say that close to the entire world population is using laws against lying stealing killing cheating. I don't think you can say they are all doing that to honor the ten commandments. Maybe you are in the minority, saying you are doing them as some kind of honoring of gods divinely inspired laws. I guess you will own slaves and treat women as property too.
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.
This was a great exploration, and had some extra heat on delivery...I felt it! Excellent breakdown. Love seeing church lady.
Regarding premise 1, even if gods did exist, choosing them as moral standards makes it subjective, and/or subjective to their will. Thus yet another nail in that coffin.
Assumption 1: god exists.
Assumption 2: god is good, not evil.
Assumption 3: WLC is not talking bollocks.
If any of those assumptions is wrong, his conclusion is wrong. All of those assumptions are wrong.
@Phillip Hickman
Prove it.
No, that's just subjective to a gods will. If it's objective it's true regardless of the subject. Try again.
@Phillip Hickman
You can't prove anything to somebody who isn't biased, either. You *do not have* objectively-verifiable evidence for your claims. All you have are unfounded assertions.
Sure, people who are as deluded and gullible as you will believe the same assertions that you do. Not all of us are that fucktarded.
@Phillip Hickman thank you for agreeing that objective morality doesn't exist.
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.
Better question... can we be good without Paul? ;)
Re. the points from 10:30:
1. This needs to more specific. Not all evaluations of the benefit of actions/decisions are in the 'morality' category. Utility / consequence, sure; but what about virtue ethics?
2. Best to avoid the word 'objectively' altogether to avoid equivocation issues.
3. Perhaps 'sentient' would be more precise (instead of 'conscious'). Also, this point ignores the 'existence' question... i.e. in some scenarios, being is preferable to well-being.
4. Agreed. And now there is question of the pleasures/pains of competing groups.
5. Agreed. Mostly.
6. As with point 3. 'existence' goals can override 'pleasure/pain' goals and as with point 4. Autonomy Ethics may override Community Ethics.
Conclusion: Agreed: "Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" -- Laplace.
:46..... Its not OBJECTIVE right or wrong, but ABSOLUTE right or wrong that you are referencing....
I must say I enjoyed this far more on a second viewing. The clarity of the arguments and their structure came through much more. This however was nothing to do with the video it was only me. Excellent work
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.
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.
Excellent video as always. Keep up the great work!
Great content.
great as always. btw, thanks for turning me on to bill ludlow...i binge watched him for several days.
POPPA SMURF Me too!
Love Bill. Glad you do too.
@@Paulogia Bill's good too. It's good to see him take Hovind down but I can't listen to Hovind for long. He makes me angry.
Even better when ole Bill deletes your comments because hes terrified of any and all information that conflicts with those things he just desires to believe because he desires to believe them ;) -
If what WLC says is true, then it's also true that his god has no objective morality or even value, since there is no "transcendent" being to provide such objectively;)
A clear rebuttal. And also feels like a concise summary of desire utilitarianism
Sonething that has struck me about this moral argument: If there is a moral code that is fixed by God and based upon his nature, then why is the response to difficult questions like "why would God seem to step in and answer prayer for some people and let others suffer?" "what makes God's actions in the Bible toward Job okay?", and "why would God order genocide in the Bible?" that God works in mysterious ways and sometimes we don't understand his ways or his plan? That would mean that what we understand as morality and "good" or "bad" doesn't always apply to God. So does morality come from God's very nature or is he above it?
3:30 also consider that little cloud of word-bubbles Craig floats; “justice” and “mercy” are at odds with each other - you can’t have both.
Let's say you have a fine that must be paid or else prison and the judge lets someone else pay thay fine for you at no cost to you wouldnt that be justice for the penalty presented by the fine being paid or else but mercy as the judge lets the fine go unpaid by you as long as it was paid. Justice and mercy at once.
Bill does not know any more than you do, dear reader.
Love your work Paul
Thanks, Andreas!
Do you know what the luminiferous aether and the abrahamic god's moral code have in common? Both were once believed to be a true privileged frame of reference
Morality is not objective. Morality is culturally relative. A similar thing can be said about "good and bad."
The enemies gate is down ... Ender Wiggin
A useful read on the layers of reciprocity is Martin Nowak,'s 2011 "Super Cooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed." Direct reciprocity pervades biological life (doesn't even require a brain), but the advent of human language elevated that to indirect reciprocity level, where reputations expand the dynamic of interaction.
Aww! No fair! I was waiting for a visit from Dana Garvey's Church Lady! "Were your nether regions too engorged and tingling because of, oh, I don't know... SATAN!" 😈😜
Good stuff, thanks for the hard work!
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.
How can something infinite create anything finite?
Why would a perfect,self sufficient Being need to create or love anything??
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.
So you had that clip of Michelle Pfeiffer going "meow" from Batman Returns, and I had to stop your video and go watch that scene several times because that was my whole sexual awakening as a teen girl right there...
The pureflix ad that ran before the beginning of the video was...apt