tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post242784095797365465..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Critique of William Lane Craig's Moral ArgumentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36316744522665221482008-11-30T17:44:00.000-05:002008-11-30T17:44:00.000-05:00Eric wrote: Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow, b...Eric wrote: <I>Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow, but no implication by itself has a consequent that necessarily follows from its antecedent; implications aren't arguments, so no consequent can necessarily follow, given the antecedent alone.</I><BR/><BR/>Looks like I've used the wrong terminology. I was attempting to be brief by identifying the particular antecedent where things break down. <BR/><BR/>Eric wrote: <I>Here you're confusing objective moral values with objective moral obligations. Moral values, according to Craig, are determined by god's nature, so they cannot be 'created.'</I><BR/><BR/>But choosing to call aspects of reality 'moral obligations' because they must have been created really isn't really a solution. In Craig's argument, human beings must have a separate, but particular and unchanging, value amongst ourselves. This value must be separate from God as he is not bound to it yet it must have always existed. <BR/><BR/><I>Moral duties follow from god's uncreated nature; god doesn't create them: they come into existence necessarily the moment god creates free beings (given god's nature). </I><BR/><BR/>But we value other human beings. We observe this in reality. I don't see how this can be defined as a "moral obligation." given the Bad or Good vs. Right or Wrong that Craig refers to. <BR/><BR/><I>Prior to that, I believe Craig would argue that they exist as true counterfactuals (given Craig's Monism). Of course, I would add, I can't speak for Craig, and may not be accurately representing the answer he would give.</I><BR/><BR/>I can't speak for Darrin, but I know he has seen the video posted in the comments above, which clearly presents Craig's idea that God's very nature is Good. <BR/><BR/>To quote Darrin... <BR/><BR/><I>Great questions from the both of you; my own answer would be that Craig has concluded implicitly through man's identity that such things are wrong, but confuses this fact by making the assertion that they must be external of man entirely. That's the common "intrinsic" vs. "subjective" notion in moral philosophy.</I><BR/><BR/>However, this was primarily an attempt to clarify my own interpretation of Darrin's critique, so I'll refrain from commenting further until he chimes in with his own clarifications.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87202147505938664042008-11-30T04:29:00.000-05:002008-11-30T04:29:00.000-05:00David,No, I'm not much of a philosopher (Rand-ian ...David,<BR/>No, I'm not much of a philosopher (Rand-ian or otherwise). I'm just unaccountably curious about these religious/philosophical debates.<BR/><BR/>RE: presupposing a personal god. Yes, that makes sense, as an impersonal god probably wouldn't care enough about the "oughts" of our personal and interpersonal relationships to establish or make known a set of moral directives.<BR/><BR/>But I still don't see the dots that go from "objective moral standards" to "the god of the Bible". I suspect that this moral argument isn't meant to be presented in isolation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02915961301089123796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35712843825113899702008-11-30T03:14:00.000-05:002008-11-30T03:14:00.000-05:00Jacob,At minimum the argument presupposes a person...Jacob,<BR/><BR/>At minimum the argument presupposes a personal God. Don't tell me you're another Rand fanatic. :-)David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32965519124709499372008-11-30T02:07:00.000-05:002008-11-30T02:07:00.000-05:00When I read Craig's premise I think:Which god, and...When I read Craig's premise I think:<BR/>Which god, and how is that determined without appealing to human consciousness?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02915961301089123796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91520352806079671332008-11-30T01:27:00.000-05:002008-11-30T01:27:00.000-05:00Doesn't the idea of us doing good only because it'...Doesn't the idea of us doing good only because it's from God means that we don't have free will in this case? The fact that we didn't have a choice in our existence goes hand in hand in what we call morality. It exists because we exist, there's no other option except to do right or wrong. If we are going to use the good that we do and say it's of God's nature, then the bad that we do should also be of God's nature. <BR/><BR/>If God is the standard of good, then it only follows that he must also be the standard for bad. To illustrate, since God has always existed with his good nature, then evil/bad must have been there with him or else his goodness would be meaningless. If this is not the case, then someone or something evil/bad was always existing also.<BR/><BR/>The morality argument is no more important than our ability to reproduce, there is no choice in having that ability, which makes the argument purposeless in regards to it's attempt at proving God's existence.<BR/><BR/>What is it to God anyways that we do good or bad. Do you think that since good and bad exist that he said it must be made manifested through human beings, so he decided to create us. It seems to me the idea of objective morality is over exaggerated unnecessarily, and therefore serves no purpose. <BR/><BR/>I especially see no purpose since throughout all human existence, God has stood by and done nothing about all the evils man has done to one another. If he doesn't think it's a big deal then why should we. So basically, if there's no purpose to objective morality in regards to God, there is no purpose for a god, therefore God doesn't exist.Ignerant Phoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13166860576010836032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59304594350442858362008-11-29T23:43:00.000-05:002008-11-29T23:43:00.000-05:00Sorry! I meant, "Hi Scott!"Sorry! I meant, "Hi Scott!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35380251343977124722008-11-29T23:42:00.000-05:002008-11-29T23:42:00.000-05:00Hi SteveYou wrote: "The premise... (1b) If a Moral...Hi Steve<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "The premise... <BR/>(1b) If a Moral Lawgiving God exists, then objective moral values exist due to His Divine Decree/Command, creation of independent "Platonic Morality Vats," etc. <BR/>This does not necessarily follow."<BR/><BR/>Sure, it doesn't necessarily follow, but no implication by itself has a consequent that necessarily follows from its antecedent; implications aren't arguments, so no consequent can necessarily follow, given the antecedent alone. (Remember, I'm talking about implications themselves; obviously, also, I'm not referring to tautological implications.)<BR/>But it is precisely because it doesn't necessarily follow that Craig provides an independent defense of this premise. I would note, though, that (1b) isn't, strictly speaking, logically equivalent to Craig's first premise, since Craig's moral argument *itself* makes no reference to *why* god's existence is a necessary condition for the existence of objective moral values, but only asserts that it is a necessary condition. Again, you can question this premise, but to do so you must provide an argument defending the notion that objective moral values can exist independently of god's existence. Darrin's approach, which set up a false alternative concerning how objective morals could be conceived and took of from there did not effectively attack Craig's first premise.<BR/><BR/>"If God is not bound by these values, but humans are, then they must exist in some form that is unique to human beings. They must exist in a human context. Since we, unlike God, have not always existed, they must have been created."<BR/><BR/>Here you're confusing objective moral values with objective moral obligations. Moral values, according to Craig, are determined by god's nature, so they cannot be 'created.' Moral duties follow from god's uncreated nature; god doesn't create them: they come into existence necessarily the moment god creates free beings (given god's nature). Prior to that, I believe Craig would argue that they exist as true counterfactuals (given Craig's Molinism). Of course, I would add, I can't speak for Craig, and may not be accurately representing the answer he would give.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31730180431952773512008-11-29T19:53:00.000-05:002008-11-29T19:53:00.000-05:00DVD wrote: So if evolution took a different "route...DVD wrote: <I>So if evolution took a different "route" then Rape could have been "Moral", and we might have had 6 fingers instead of 5?</I><BR/><BR/>If objective moral values are a part of God's nature, and God has always existed, then how could it have been eternally wrong to rape a child if children have not eternally existed? <BR/><BR/>How could it be wrong to rape a child even if God had not decided to create human beings (and therefore children)?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20929202070230550692008-11-29T19:44:00.000-05:002008-11-29T19:44:00.000-05:00Eric, If I understand Darrin correctly, he's imply...Eric, <BR/><BR/>If I understand Darrin correctly, he's implying that Dr. Craig's first premise is really disguised by his 'inversion' of the premise. Dr. Craig must show that objective moral values are contingent on God's existence and could not exist otherwise. <BR/><BR/>The premise... <BR/><BR/><I>(1b) If a Moral Lawgiving God exists, then objective moral values exist due to His Divine Decree/Command, creation of independent "Platonic Morality Vats," etc. </I><BR/><BR/>This does not necessarily follow. Just because there would be a Moral Lawgiving God does not mean such a being is actually responsible for objective moral values. This presupposes both objective moral values and God's involvement. <BR/><BR/><I>There *is* another "means of morals being objective," and it is precisely the one that Craig defends, viz. objective moral values exist *by virtue of god's nature* which is the standard of moral goodness, and moral duties and obligations, which conform to that standard, exist as god's commands</I><BR/><BR/>I think what Darrin is referring to our inherent knowledge and context of these values when he says...<BR/><BR/><I>...creating Platonic forms to house them, etc., or in the hearts of men as Paul states.</I><BR/><BR/>The fact that Craig claims they these values are non-bingding on God, yet would have existed had God decided not to create mankind, is problematic. <BR/><BR/>If God is not bound by these values, but humans are, then they must exist in some form that is unique to human beings. They must exist in a human context. Since we, unlike God, have not always existed, they must have been created. <BR/><BR/><I>(Incidentally, this is why Craig spent so much time distinguishing moral values from moral obligations: it provides an objective moral ground -- god's nature -- for god's commands -- our moral duties and obligations.) </I><BR/><BR/>But all we would have is God's obligations, and that's not what we observe. Instead, human beings appear to hold specific moral values and hold them in a uniform way. What I think Darrin is referring to here is how moral values appear to be, as Paul said, written on the hearts of men, which provides moral ground for our actions.<BR/><BR/>If men's hearts have not or may not have existed, then God must have written human-specific values on them at some point in time. These values must have been created.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55734417643867948732008-11-29T15:08:00.000-05:002008-11-29T15:08:00.000-05:00Hi DarrinYou wrote:"Premise (1) is logically equiv...Hi Darrin<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Premise (1) is logically equivalent to "If objective moral values exist, God exists,"; to prove this statement logically without appeal under Bill's definition, one must show that either:<BR/>(a) Objective moral values are present as an inherent property of reality qua reality independently of any consciousness, including God's, not unlike a Platonic "form" or Aristotelean "essence";<BR/>(b) Objective moral values exist because God delivered them by Divine Command, Divine Decree, creating Platonic forms to house them, etc., or in the hearts of men as Paul states. <BR/>No other means of morals being objective is at all possible."<BR/><BR/>This is a false alternative. There *is* another "means of morals being objective," and it is precisely the one that Craig defends, viz. objective moral values exist *by virtue of god's nature*, which is the standard of moral goodness, and moral duties and obligations, which conform to that standard, exist as god's commands (let's call this option 'c'). (Incidentally, this is why Craig spent so much time distinguishing moral values from moral obligations: it provides an objective moral ground -- god's nature -- for god's commands -- our moral duties and obligations.) <BR/><BR/>Note that premise one is free from any of your criticisms, given this conception of moral objectivity. Note also that your criticism isn't actually with the logic of Craig's argument, *but with his defense of premise one*. If this is the case, then we *must* look at option (c), and see the consequences it has for your alternatives.<BR/><BR/>Your criticism of option (a) fails to address Craig's argument because it's not the case, given (c), that morals exist "in reality apart from God." And your criticism of option (b) fails to address Craig's argument because god did not, again given (c), "[create] them in reality"; they exist in god's nature, which means that they exist both objectively and necessarily, and are therefore not created.<BR/><BR/>Now, one can of course criticize (c) in any number of ways, but your alternatives, and your criticisms of them, in no way affect (c), which is what Craig defends. It seems to me, therefore, that your analysis has not in any way weakened Craig's moral argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52706008745681672572008-11-29T15:03:00.000-05:002008-11-29T15:03:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55368164896841282422008-11-29T13:40:00.000-05:002008-11-29T13:40:00.000-05:00DVD wrote: *IF* the president had ordered the "inc...DVD wrote: <I>*IF* the president had ordered the "incineration" by way of a missile of Children aboard the Plane, in your view is that "murder"?<BR/><BR/>If you argue for the "greater good", then on what basis can you judge another person such as God for any supposed "crime"? It could be that it was for a greater good?</I><BR/><BR/>The problem with this sort of analogy is that you're asserting that God has some "good" reason for actions that do not fit his means. <BR/><BR/>For example, God doesn't need to incinerate an entire plane to prevent it from flying into a building. He could simply "teleport" it to a safe location on the ground with the terrorists unconscious, in handcuffs. <BR/><BR/>However, if God did incinerate a plane despite his ability to resolve the issue without harming the passengers, then yes, I'd say it was murder. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you might make up some kind of mysterious reason why God couldn't exercise his abilities, such as infringing on the terrorists free will, revealing himself in a concrete manner, etc. The problem here is that you'd have to show that these reasons are necessary for the better good given God's means, instead of merely asserting them. <BR/><BR/>For example, God says he wants everyone to be saved. However, God would rather have only a small number of people saved who choose by faith rather than save significantly more people by revealing himself in a concrete way. In this scenario, what God "wants" and what is best for everyone doesn't seem to match up. Would it be better for the majority to spend an eternity in hell than be given "too much" evidence for God's existence and go to heaven? <BR/><BR/>In this case, you're depending on the idea that having people choose by faith is better than other options, because that's supposedly what God wants (and God is your moral compass)<BR/><BR/>You've come to this conclusion by starting out with the presuppositions that God exists and that he intentionally hasn't revealed himself to us in a concrete way (instead of merely not existing)Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54639093740240376712008-11-29T03:50:00.000-05:002008-11-29T03:50:00.000-05:00DVDIf you argue for the "greater good", then on wh...DVD<BR/>If you argue for the "greater good", then on what basis can you judge another person such as God for any supposed "crime"? It could be that it was for a greater good?<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>God does not have to kill people to acheive good.<BR/><BR/>This alleged god is supposed to be all-powerful.<BR/><BR/>Did the killing of Jesus by humanity lead to a greater good?<BR/><BR/>So it was not a crime to kill, flog, beat, strip and mock Jesus.<BR/><BR/>It led to a greater good.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59627715879599362782008-11-29T00:49:00.000-05:002008-11-29T00:49:00.000-05:00DVD,excellent questions my friend and I want to he...DVD,<BR/><BR/>excellent questions my friend and I want to hear Steven Carr or Darrin address this. Especially this part:<BR/><BR/><I>"*IF* the president had ordered the "incineration" by way of a missile of Children aboard the Plane, in your view is that "murder"?<BR/><BR/>If you argue for the "greater good", then on what basis can you judge another person such as God for any supposed "crime"? It could be that it was for a greater good?"</I><BR/><BR/>I believe Darrin misunderstands Craig's definition OMV and includes "God's consciousness" in the equation when the definition is based on "human consciousness" thus tipping his hand in the Rand type of self-awareness argumentation that robert_b has offered on this site also.<BR/><BR/>Then Darrin says that OMV's only exist if MEN exist in reality. Now, there's a nugget to chew on. Before the fall of man there was no need for OMV's. As all including man was "good". After the fall there was a need to adjust, adjudicate and discern right from wrong. <BR/><BR/>So one could make a case that OMV's are vicariously and indirectly a result of sin. However that ability to discern and perceive OMV's are from God, as sin totally depraves the nature of man within the christian world-view, and natural selection being blind and as affirmed by Dawkins would have been arbitrary.<BR/><BR/>Therefore without OMV as I state on my site, murder wolud hold as much value and moral esteem and preserving life, hate as much vale as love etc... <BR/><BR/>In essence Darrin, I am one that believes that both sinner and saint alike can be moral, however there is a difference as morality cannot rid a person of a sin nature.<BR/><BR/>To say that your argument somehow overturns Craig's is a serious overstatement as your conclusions somewhat make leaps, but I will grant you that you insulate yourself by stating that your argument wasn't designed to <I>"disprove God or even a moral lawgiver"</I> which is somewhat confusing to me because craig's statment is designed to prove the existence of God and the existence of him as the Moral Law Giver.<BR/><BR/>ThanksDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64405386896130924392008-11-28T23:39:00.000-05:002008-11-28T23:39:00.000-05:00Steve CarrI noticed you did not really answer my q...Steve Carr<BR/><BR/>I noticed you did not really answer my question. I was not talking about the plane that crashed.<BR/><BR/>I was talking about a plane that was going into the Towers.<BR/><BR/>*IF* the president had ordered the "incineration" by way of a missile of Children aboard the Plane, in your view is that "murder"?<BR/><BR/>If you argue for the "greater good", then on what basis can you judge another person such as God for any supposed "crime"? It could be that it was for a greater good?dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68852314401458611532008-11-28T23:37:00.000-05:002008-11-28T23:37:00.000-05:00Steve CarrWhen I say God is the Highest Good, when...Steve Carr<BR/><BR/>When I say God is the Highest Good, when refering to his nature, let me be clear on what it is you believe.<BR/><BR/>Are you saying that Good does not exist at all? In other words, when you argue that the world "ought" to be a certain way, what would your "ought" be based on?dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75490157621860583722008-11-28T23:35:00.000-05:002008-11-28T23:35:00.000-05:00Steve carr"And where did Dawkins say that beliefs ...Steve carr<BR/>"And where did Dawkins say that beliefs are produced by evolution?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Richard Dawkins interview with Justin from Premeier Christian Radio:<BR/><BR/><BR/>RD: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.<BR/><BR/>Me: So therefore its just as random as any product of evolution?<BR/><BR/>RD: Well, you could say that, but it doesn't in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.<BR/><BR/>Me: Ok, but ultimately your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six?<BR/><BR/>RD: You could say that, yeah." <BR/>===============================<BR/><BR/><BR/>Richard Dawkins agrees, that "your belief that rape is wrong is arbitrary"dvdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033126097937458890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40538357232794738942008-11-28T21:33:00.000-05:002008-11-28T21:33:00.000-05:00ooops . . .Actually, I just love this faulty logic...ooops . . .<BR/><BR/>Actually, I just love this faulty logic about not being able to have Morality withOUT God. (sorry for the typo)AdamKadmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07955770873019889576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6346759282093222212008-11-28T21:32:00.000-05:002008-11-28T21:32:00.000-05:00Hello, newbie here. Great site.Actually, I just l...Hello, newbie here. Great site.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I just love this faulty logic about not being able to have Morality with God. That's like saying, "all cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore all cats are dogs."<BR/><BR/>Hammurabi had his version of the Golden Rule over 1,000 years before Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. The fact is, Morality started out, most likely as a selfish act. Meaning that the oldest example is in the Middle Eastern Desert Tribes, where you took in any lost wanderer's that you came across. Fed, watered and healed them, in the hope that whenever someone from your own family/tribe was lost, others would do the same (i.e., do unto others...) The oldest written example of this is Lot taking in the Angels and protecting them by offering up his own virgin daughters (this is not as offensive as most people perceive) as he was duty-bound by taking them in, to do whatever was necessary to protect them.<BR/><BR/>So, you can have morality without God.<BR/><BR/>Again, great site, glad I found it!AdamKadmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07955770873019889576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25586131222590111142008-11-28T18:46:00.000-05:002008-11-28T18:46:00.000-05:00Darrin,I'm not sure why those are the only two opt...Darrin,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure why those are the only two options. Could you explain how you derived those? Seems like you're loading down the argument with views to which it's not committed.<BR/><BR/>Sidenote: you said, "Premise (1) is invalid." FYI, invalidity refers to argument forms, not premises.Charliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16241851773339800938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42441072462094720382008-11-28T15:00:00.000-05:002008-11-28T15:00:00.000-05:00>>David//Exactly how did you arrive at this ...>>David<BR/><BR/>//Exactly how did you arrive at this dichotomy which presumably could warrant premise 1?// <BR/><BR/>This is paraphrasing from Reasonable Faith (see the discussion on the first premise of the Moral Argument on the second chapter proving God's existence). <BR/><BR/>I have a much better presentation that I am working on; I will present it later today.Darrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12757150483103267411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49498233931058853892008-11-28T13:56:00.000-05:002008-11-28T13:56:00.000-05:00I think Dawkins in his interview with Justin was a...I think Dawkins in his interview with Justin was a bit stunned by this statement of Justin's<BR/><BR/>'When you make a value judgement don't you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it's good.'<BR/><BR/>So is that all objective moral values boil down to - the reason something is good is that it's good?<BR/><BR/>The reason god is good is that he is good?<BR/><BR/>Surely Christians have something which actually is supposed to make sense, rather than saying something is X because it is X.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59702600773722732952008-11-28T13:52:00.000-05:002008-11-28T13:52:00.000-05:00DVDGod would be the source of Good in that his own...DVD<BR/>God would be the source of Good in that his own very nature would be what all others would be striving for or imitate.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>This is meaningless, as it just means good is god's nature and god's nature is good.<BR/><BR/>This makes 'good' meaningless.<BR/><BR/>And where did Dawkins say that beliefs are produced by evolution?<BR/><BR/>He has never said that. <BR/><BR/>And if we had evolved so that rape was good for mankind, you can bet that Holy Books would condemn consenual sex, and Craig would be pointing to passages in the Bible where it was commanded that men get their knives blessed by God before threatening women with them.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75146131556269775612008-11-28T13:46:00.000-05:002008-11-28T13:46:00.000-05:00DVDraises a question of whether the planes should ...DVD<BR/>raises a question of whether the planes should have been shot down.<BR/><BR/>I thought the passengers on one of the planes did bring down the aircraft themselves.<BR/><BR/>It might be the case that an innocent person has to die for the greater good.<BR/><BR/>It wasn't only Spock who said that, it is also the main plank of Christianity.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52021466536031286432008-11-28T12:57:00.000-05:002008-11-28T12:57:00.000-05:00Darrin,I haven't surfed the thread yet, but I had ...Darrin,<BR/><BR/>I haven't surfed the thread yet, but I had a question.<BR/><BR/><I>"If objective moral values exist, God exists,"; to prove this statement logically without appeal under Bill's definition, one must show that either:<BR/><BR/>(a) Objective moral values are present as an inherent property of reality qua reality independently of any consciousness, including God's, not unlike a Platonic "form" or Aristotelean "essence";<BR/><BR/>(b) Objective moral values exist because God delivered them by Divine Command, Divine Decree, creating Platonic forms to house them, etc., or in the hearts of men as Paul states. <BR/><BR/>No other means of morals being objective is at all possible.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly how did you arrive at this dichotomy which presumably could warrant premise 1?David Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13714637134009580948noreply@blogger.com