cyrexx: For those who really want to know, this OMV argument/defense is the moral argument given by WL Craig which states that:

4) If there are objective moral values, then God exists
5) There are objective moral values
6) Therefore, God exists.

“Objective moral values” here means that moral values are true regardless of what anyone thinks. For example, “murder is wrong” would be wrong even if every single human being thought murder was the way to achieve greatest happiness and encouraged it as an extracurricular activity for teenagers. But the only way to hold that objective moral values exist is to grant God’s existence, because objective laws require an objective lawgiver.

This argument commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are contingent on a god existing, when this is not necessarily so. No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitiarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Dr. Craig does in his argument. Let me make a substitution in Dr. Craig's argument to illustrate:

P1. If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C. Therefore, humans exist.

Just like William Craig's argument, there is no proof for P1. The argument is valid, but whether it is sound or not is questionable. In the case of Craig's argument, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and that is the use of Normative Ethical Theories.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans. Many animals have exhibited moral behaviors, so it is not necessarily so that morality only exists in the realm of humanity.

For the sake of argument, let's assume his argument works. Dr. Craig himself admits that this argument alone does not prove the Christian god. The reason for this is that every non-Christian culture, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not contingent on the christian god Yahweh existing. Hindu's have a moral code. African Traditional religionists had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians came along, and many Christian missionaries made note of the fact the Indians had "no sin. " Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists and that we received moral values from this particular god. Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims god told him to in order to save them from Satan. Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy. The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn. This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said. Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16)

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right. If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good." Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.


Source

mazaje:


What am saying is that morality can not be objective when some people see nothing wrong with being gay others see it as a bad thing. Right or wrong depends on the society you live in and period in time. I said polygamy is right in some society and wrong in others. . .When slavery was good, your god was advocating the sale of people daughters into slavery. . .Right and wrong are not objective. . .If they were people your honour and revere as good men, people like Moses will not honoured an revered. . .If Moses was alive today and did what was written about him in the bible he will be executed or be sentenced to life in prison as a war criminal and an advocate of slavery. . .

ifeness:

I totally agree with you bro. Even Jesus might ask christians to cast the first stone if they think they are better than the gays.

The human race is still evolving,so laws do change according to the levels of evolution. Therefore,judging our present day society with the bible is wrong. Even our laws today will find the god of the bible primitive like the boko haram and talibans e.g stoning wayward children to death, not working on sunday etc. although some people are still caught up the the past(christians and muslims) that doent mean there are no sane people aiding the growth the society deserves.

The more we evolve,the more we readjust our laws.

mazaje:


What am saying is that morality can not be objective when some people see nothing wrong with being gay others see it as a bad thing. Right or wrong depends on the society you live in and period in time. I said polygamy is right in some society and wrong in others. . .When slavery was good, your god was advocating the sale of people daughters into slavery. . .Right and wrong are not objective. . .If they were people your honour and revere as good men, people like Moses will not honoured an revered. . .If Moses was alive today and did what was written about him in the bible he will be executed or be sentenced to life in prison as a war criminal and an advocate of slavery. . .

mazaje:
[size=14pt]
Anony keeps claiming that morality is objective but when asked to show how he keeps speaking english. . [/size]. .

Mr_Anony:
And once again, my point is that if what is right for me is wrong for you, and what is wrong for you is right for someone else, we immediately lose the right to make any moral judgments. For instance, you can no longer claim that a murderer is evil. It is merely your opinion. Murder is right for him.

If we respect subjective morality, we can no longer make any laws because it becomes a case of "who are you to tell someone else that an action is wrong?"

Whenever you say that something is evil and expect someone else to obviously agree with you, you are at that moment assuming an objective morality because you expect everyone to know that obviously such and such is wrong.

mazaje:

You know what am talking about but you as usual are trying to make things up and run commentary on them. I maintain that people chose what is right or wrong in every society, morality depends on what people chose to label as right or wrong. Consensus is what people chose to tag what is right or what is wrong. Morality is not objective but depends on the society and period in time. When I say that stealing is wrong I say so because most societies have come to agree that it is wrong, but that can not be said about polygamy or homosexuality. People select leaders and leaders through consensus make laws that they live by which are enforced on the people based on how the feel justice and prosperity of the people will be served, sometimes these laws are made based on greed and selfishness. These laws are subject to change and are constantly changing. Through out human history morality is based on human consensus and varies from place to place and time in history. It has never been objective and has nothing to do with any god since all moral laws and codes of conduct are a creation of human beings. . .

Mr_Anony:
My friend, you have repeated this same thing over and over again and you can repeat it some more if you like, the fact remains that one cannot make any valid moral judgment without ascribing to an objective morality

Mr_Anony:
Perhaps you should actually seek and read WLC's argument in detail first before copypasting some rebuttal. This one is laughable

Enigma: Even some atheists acknowledged that Harris lost --- because of inability to engage the real issue.

Here is something I've posted before https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/3#9574574

harakiri: Imagine people who have zero understanding of the word "ATHEIST" means giving "keys" of becoming an "effective atheist". How dumb can people really be?

cyrexx: . . . .
*edited*

Valakanke:

Anyone in his right thinking mind would be disgusted. But the fact remains that this trend is here to stay. In the UK where I live some people still frown and are disgusted by it. It is a growing trend and the only thing one can do is not allow our family or relatives get involved becos it is a terrible soul destroying demonic spirit. We mind our business when we come across them here as they now seem to be all over the place otherwise you will get into real and serious trouble as it has worked its way into government.VERY SAD!!

fellis:

Awww, Sorry about that man.

I live in Nigeria though and I am not under any pressure to pretend that I am okay with homosexuality (thank God).

I don't understand this type of by force acceptance for gays that these western countries are trying to force down our throats.

fellis: ^^^
They should be locked behind bars for 14 years so that us normal people will not have to interact with them.

Rather they are left to roam free and to even get married.

That is how western societies force us to accept them.

Logicboy03:



Wow, seriously? You dont honestly believe that!


Tell me that you are trolling?

wiegraf:

Bigotry is not supposed to be reasonable

Smartie gurl: I wonder the kind of pleasure these people gain from flirting around same sex! Too bad you knw!

Logicboy03:

Don't like tithing? Don't pay tithe
Don't like churches? Don't go to one
Don't like prayer? Don't pray
Don't like miracles? Don't seek them
Don't like people insulting your father?
Don't insult their heavenly father

Logicboy03:

cyrexx:

what makes you think i've not understood WLC's argument?

when you want to avoid and dodge my points, you accuse me of what is not.

if you are too lazy and biased to read that rebuttal to WLC, you can watch this video that not only explains what OMV entails, but proves it wrong as basis for the argument of god's existence, i.e. if one is not trying to employ anonyism and dodging the obvious


here is the full debate between Sam Harris and W.L. Craig. somewhere in the video, Sam utterly destroy Craig's OMV arguments. i expect you to watch in entirety before you comment on it




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg

cyrexx:

and i'm sure some theists will acknowledge that Sam Harris won, with the way Craig is unable to defend the inconsistent moral codes of yahweh.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Interesting



Goes both ways you know.........

Logicboy03:


Well played Anony.....well played!


The heavenly father part is crap. Is god a man?

Mr_Anony:
Yawn....

Logicboy03:


But.....I praised you for your well played counter?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, that's not why I was yawning..........I was yawning at the "is God a man" part.