Bahnsen/Stein Debate: Does God Exist?

[_asbestosman]

For example, if you think and act as though objective ethical norms exist, then you must presuppose God exists lest your worldview collapse into incoherence. See William Lane Craig explain this here: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... r-god.html (This link also contains some adept refutations of potential atheist objections in the Q and A). So when an atheist objects to God on the basis of moral "problems" with God, this objection actually reveals the futility of unbelief; without God there are no real ethical objections to anything.

A few thoughts come to mind. One is that people often hold contradictory views without realizing it. I think likely that many Western atheists still view the world through somewhat Christian lenses because of the prevelance of Christianity in the West. I would think that atheists from the East would more likely view the world through Buddhist or other such lenses except where they are influenced by Western atheists.

The logical outline at the beginning of William Lane Craig's talk says that
1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore: God exists. (Modus Tollens)

An example he gives of objective moral values is of the Holocaust. Even if the Nazis won and killed everyone who disagreed with them, killing the Jews would still have been wrong. That is how he defines objective moral values.


I think that's actually trickier for someone to really understand than it first seems. I think most people just wouldn't recognize how to view it such that one can deny objective moral values and yet say that killing the Jews would still have been wrong. Even if you, an objector wouldn't exist in that world, you do exist in this one and can still subjectively condemn those heinous acts. That you wouldn't exist in that world does not erase your condemnations of those actions in said hypothetical world from your view in this world.

I may have to finish listening to it (and maybe listen to cksalmon's link too).

[Analytics]

From William Lane Craig on the Euthypyroean dillema:

So when the atheist says to you, "if God had commanded that child abuse be good", would we be obligated to abuse our children?" Don't fall for that pseudo-question. That's like asking, "if there were a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides?" . . . Similarly, asking, "what if God had commanded something contrary to His own nature?" is as absurd as saying, "What if there were a round circle". Therefore the Euthopyro dillema simply presents us with a false choice and we shouldn't be tricked by it.

It seems to me that he saying that things are good because God wills it, and God is good because that is His nature just as circles are round because that is their nature. I don't think that escapes the Euthpyro dillema so much brings up the question about why God's nature is necesarily good just as a circle's nature is necessarily round. Without establishing this, then the atheist's objection to a similar answer to the dillema stands: If God wills it because it's His nature to be good, and His nature is the standard by which good is measured, then how is that good not arbitrary? It seems at the least to be circular.

Another potential objection is that even if God's nature is such that He will not command that child abuse be good, He has commanded some things that many people do find horrible. Commanding Abraham to Sacrifice Isaac is one example even though He commanded Abraham not to follow through. Genociding nations in the Old Testament comes to mind. So does capital punishment for such infractions as bein a bratty kid, or working on the Sabbath. Perhaps those are all good things, but they give many men pause about just what the meaning of "good" really is--at least so far as God defines the term.

[_Gadianton]

Here's one of the great things about objective morals. Let's say it's first and foremost wrong to not love God. Then, even if 99.999% of the world were to come together in peace they'd all be doomed to eternal fire for the rest of eternity as a just punishment if they don't love God. But this really means something, because as meaning is also objective, it doesn't matter if life and eternity feels like a sham for 99.999% of the population, from the time they are born to the time in infinity where they're crying from the flames, we can rest assured that objectivity rules the day.

The only reason Lane can convince his audience that objectivity matters, is that it's already more or less set in stone subjectively, as asb's example proves. And the reality is that if Hitler won the day, and all non-sympathizers killed, and if it were morally accepted in society that Hitler was right, the H-Lane craig would be arguing for objectivity still and assuring his audience that it's still wrong to let Jews live even if Hitler would have lost.

Mormons and Christians have this strong belief in moral objectivity, but it only goes as deep as their own subjectivity. DCP has claimed that Calvinism is downright evil in its theology. He may believe that for the rest of eternity as he will go to hell when he dies for not being elect and it won't matter at all if there is a consensus of unfainess amongst the 99.999% who suffer the same consequence. Any appeals link to subjective criteria that matter not at all against the ontologically real Moral Law. DCP won't worry about this, as he can't imagine Moral Law deviating from his own personal tastes and preferences.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

[quote="Gadianton"]

You know aLight, if it were an atheist going into the store, he'd be buying a porterhouse along with some kind of backup like porkchops for the bbq. When will you and Doug be ready to ditch the bottle of milk and fairy tales at bedtime and join the adults for dinner?

As I mentioned to CK, I don't have a computer with sound, so I can't watch Lane work his audience.[/quote]

Gadianton as a child:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

[_asbestosman]

Mormons and Christians have this strong belief in moral objectivity, but it only goes as deep as their own subjectivity. DCP has claimed that Calvinism is downright evil in its theology. He may believe that for the rest of eternity as he will go to hell when he dies for not being elect and it won't matter at all if there is a consensus of unfainess amongst the 99.999% who suffer the same consequence. Any appeals link to subjective criteria that matter not at all against the ontologically real Moral Law. DCP won't worry about this, as he can't imagine Moral Law deviating from his own personal tastes and preferences.

That's an interesting point, and one that William Lane Craig talks a bit about. On the one hand Craig argues that objective morals exist, but on the other hand he concedes that humans often get them wrong, or at least don't get God's mind right. What an interesting problem that is. He knows that objective morals exist, but he's not 100% sure about what they are? Hmmmm.

[_Gadianton]

Mormons and Christians have this strong belief in moral objectivity, but it only goes as deep as their own subjectivity. DCP has claimed that Calvinism is downright evil in its theology. He may believe that for the rest of eternity as he will go to hell when he dies for not being elect and it won't matter at all if there is a consensus of unfainess amongst the 99.999% who suffer the same consequence. Any appeals link to subjective criteria that matter not at all against the ontologically real Moral Law. DCP won't worry about this, as he can't imagine Moral Law deviating from his own personal tastes and preferences.

That's an interesting point, and one that William Lane Craig talks a bit about. On the one hand Craig argues that objective morals exist, but on the other hand he concedes that humans often get them wrong, or at least don't get God's mind right. What an interesting problem that is. He knows that objective morals exist, but he's not 100% sure about what they are? Hmmmm.

That's part of my point. I'm also trying to say that objective morals are overrated. The absoluteness of them seems only really favorable when its something we already believe subjectively, having some kind of practical explanation. It's far too easy to imagine objective morals, when the criteria is deontic, to be completely disconnected from anything that would matter to anyone except some very small fragment of the population.

Walking more than 40 steps on the sabbath could be wrong - not because it does any kind of practical damage. But just because it's an objective law of the universe, kind of like 3.14159.. isn't 3.2455... At most we might say God will punish. And even if he's constrained to, the punishment doesn't make it wrong. We can imagine no punishments dealt. It would still be wrong. No one would care. There would be no explanation for it. In fact God and humanity could go on ingoring it til the end of time while obeying and enforcing rules derived from subjective meaning. Those cold laws would still be on the books of the universe, and that's about it.