Topic: Craig's defense of the slaughter of Canaanites - Rebuttal?

[klintistvud]

2. Objective moral values do exist.

What would the converse look like? What does "objective moral values" even mean? Do you mean "don't kill people", because a. that is highly subjective and subverted by Christians for a variety of subjective reasons all the time, and b. doesn't require the existence of gods to agree in? Do you mean "when you drop a ball from the side of a building it will fall until it hits the ground"? Because that doesn't seem terribly "moral" to me, is technically subverted by quantum-level physics, and at that is only really true on the planet we live on.

According to him (from the blogpost), our moral duties come from God's commands. Now if you can find somewhere in there moral values, because He is after all God (omniscient, omnipotent etc.) that values are objective.

The problem is that you can't prove God's existence by his argument, if for the second premise to be true you need to presume the existence of God.

[daemonowner]

The only man I despise more than WLC is Hovind. Fucking hate that asshole.

[Johnny Slick]

2. Objective moral values do exist.

What would the converse look like? What does "objective moral values" even mean? Do you mean "don't kill people", because a. that is highly subjective and subverted by Christians for a variety of subjective reasons all the time, and b. doesn't require the existence of gods to agree in? Do you mean "when you drop a ball from the side of a building it will fall until it hits the ground"? Because that doesn't seem terribly "moral" to me, is technically subverted by quantum-level physics, and at that is only really true on the planet we live on.

According to him (from the blogpost), our moral duties come from God's commands. Now if you can find somewhere in there moral values, because He is after all God (omniscient, omnipotent etc.) that values are objective.

The problem is that you can't prove God's existence by his argument, if for the second premise to be true you need to presume the existence of God.

Yeah, I'm a little aware of him thanks to Reasonable Doubts. His reasoning in the end is essentially circular; this thing exists because this thing exists. And on top of that, from what I've heard about him, the "point" of presuppositionalism doesn't even appear to be to actually prove God so much as it is to make atheists look slimy and immoral because their morality is subjective OMG.

[Traveler]

His reasoning is even more ridiculous if you replace "God" with "My God". Even if his "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist" premise is true, how is his argument proof for Jehovah? It could just as well be proof for the existence of Zoroastrianism's Ahura Mazda.

[JuniorSpaceman]

What's so good about objective morality anyway? The bible does not even have a single system of morality from start to finish, and it seems that god can change the rules at any time as needed, or just for the heck of it. Such as, for example, ordering mass murder.

[worldslaziestbusker]

I have discussed this with WLC devotees at the forum of his website.  http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Can-there-be-Good-without-God-Team-Debate-at-Flinders-University-5343492
During the course of the dialogue, another atheist posited that objective morality is possible but undesirable.  Consulting chicken entrails according to a set of rules, or flipping a coin to determine every decision, the outcome would be independent of personal and societal values and would be as valid in another galaxy as in your home town.  Objective moral framework achieved.  Ethically a bit sucky, though. 



Couldn't find a pic of the executive decision making machine Terry Gilliam imagined for "Brazil," but the magic 8 ball does similar work.

[Neon Genesis]

Even though I don't always agree with him on all moral issues, I think Sam Harris makes the best case for a secular objective morality in The Moral Landscape.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Even though I don't always agree with him on all moral issues, I think Sam Harris makes the best case for a secular objective morality in The Moral Landscape.

I haven't read "The Moral Landscape."  How does Harris kick things off?  I can see how by using particular ethical models you can come to consistent moral positions, but these still require that you start from a subjective axiom: e.g. being alive is better than not being alive.
I guess I need to know how objective is defined first.  Does Harris propose that his objective morality would be as valid for aliens?  If it doesn't apply everywhere and everywhen for everyone, and relies on external inputs to get moving, I don't think a morality is objective. 
The magic 8 ball approach is as close as I've seen anyone come to defining an objective moral framework, but it isn't one I would subscribe to and it serves to re-illustrate the difference between morals and ethics.

[Neon Genesis]

He basically argues for a form of moral consequentalism that's informed by critical thinking and scientific facts as opposed to religion or tradition.