😂😂😂

Imagine WLC singing hot for teacher lmao

Probably the most accurate observation I’ve have heard so far 👍

I agree and it also puts WLC well out of his comfort zone so his weak arguments can be exposed.

I agree. The long breaks between loses the fluidity of conversation.

Oners82 how so?

je moeder www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

je moeder www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Brandon Harrell haha me too. “The imortality of the soul”

We're sort of classmates then

I have his book on death and I've watched the same courses. An excellent mind and an excellent teacher!

Brandon www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

John Watson www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

John Watson www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

buseyisgod This should be required watching for Ben Carson, the Duck Dynasty fellow, Steve Harvey, and every other person who's demonstrated zero intellectual curiosity and claimed on T.V./radio, with a large (also mostly intellectually incurious) audience watching, that there's no foundation for atheistic morality.

buseyisgod www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

hes a yale professor

Ezequiel Sequeira Generally speaking it’s the “4 horsemen of atheism” such as Richards Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens(R.I.P), Sam Harris, and Daniel something. It refers to those who they influenced as well such as their fan bases. Dawkins is usually credited with bringing about the rise of new atheism or atleast he’s the biggest influencer.

Modus www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Modus www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Chris Beltran www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Chris Beltran www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

@@littlecousin5630 The one with him and Sean Caroll is the one where he most APPEARS to have lost. But after thinking about it, not really. WLC painted himself into a corner by engaging in scientific theories which are not his domain. But Sean claimed some very stupid things in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. He just sounded super confident. It caught WLC by surprise.

ridiculous...Kagan just stated so many presuppositions, it was hard to keep track...I think the 'stumbling' of Craig was just astonishment that someone (Kagan) would have such an elaborate scheme to evade the real questions and points Craig raised.

The Deboxifier: Tech and Cryptos China you do realise Craig’s whole schtick is built in a foundation of presuppositions right?

Yes. In most other debates Craig is performing a formal debate and his oponents are talking to the audience. You would expect him not to stumble...he is not engaged.

VemundVR www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

I agree. It's quite amazing. Maybe this is because this topic itself is one in which the atheist in question here, namely Shelly Kagan, is often attacked by his fellow atheist scientists. It seems it is a topic that confuses a lot of people and still is unanswerable to date by anyone of nay walk of life. Very good debate for sure and to think that I came from this video saying his performance was a shambles, absolute rubbish, it was great, even if I myself do disagree with him here!

Oh, to be sure, I disagree with Craig as well, but for once, he presented an argument that I did not have an immediate rebuttal to. And when you said you 'came from this video saying his performance was a shambles', what did you mean by that? Did you mean the debate was still good despite his rubbish performance? Or did something change your mind about it later?

Astral Lexicon Oops, I meant to link you a video by the messianic messiah which was what made me find this debate. He took everything Craig said completely out of context is "highlight" video. It was very unfair...

I think you mean the Messianic Manic, and yes that was how I found this debate too, so no worries; I've seen it.

Astral Lexicon That is what I meant, my bad.

Teo Wilkening www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

William Alston www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

@@kirankareem7648 Go get a life

William Alston www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

I think Shell Kagan actually answered Craig's questions it's just that Craig couldn't really do anything with his answers because Kagan was making perfect sense. Also Craig is either unwilling, or unable to understand that determinism can work with free will. To me it's not that hard to understand that though we humans poses free will, it is still within a relative spectrum that can at random only have a finite outcome. Though it seems like it is the opposite.

Nichole www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Nichole www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

it’s super old, I was 9 when this was uploaded d

bonkoboy but what of the question of bringing others to the faith, something not required and still is altruistic but in the metaphysical sense. Not something required by doctrine. But to directly answer your hypothetical, I think it would be the wrong God at that point. Or maybe the complexity of the variables within the subject is just too much to answer your hypothetical with a simple yes or no. So to say the God is selfishness, and could be apologetically asserted as the right God. Then that’s what would be written on our hearts would it not?

You missed the point then. What is altruism defined in your framework?

@@z.a.dewitt8664 Wow, I had really written a long post there, sorry about that. I do try to be more brief these days. Altruism, according to my own framework, would probably be the notion of acting selflessly, or in a way that places the needs or priorities of another person before my own. So, the more my own interests take precedence within my actions, the less altruistic my actions would become. Something like that. Perhaps you could specify the point I missed? I haven't seen this in a while.

bonkoboy www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

@@nut913 (sorry for late reply) I guess my point was that a believer would assume that their God knew their every action and thought, making all actions necessarily overt. As such, it's hard to see anyone acting selflessly with the ever-present audience of a God that presumably views altruism as a net positive. It would be normal to presume that such an act may be carrying more positive implications down the line, which makes it hard to argue that it could also be entirely selfless. It may even make selflessness impossible.

Fuzzy Danglers www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

RyanM www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

Expert troll

Thank you I guess.

People who like to harm children are evil. They have the absence of God-honoring good thoughts.

"Good and evil aren't as 2 dimensional as you attempt to make them out to be." Would this not also be an unsupported assertion? There was no rational reasoning provided to support why it isn't.

" WLC's body language in the discussion part is great to observe." - Oh, don't be so cruel.. he is the quintessential white man.. can you imagine him DANCING? .. I can.. it would be the fox trot.

Rayvvvone Oh, on't be so cruel to the sophisticated Fox Trot ;)

Kristi Winters Ok.. Fox Trot is good.. Craig is not . How about this 1) f there is no Craig, silly tautologies would not exist. 2) Silly tautologies exist. 3) therefore, Craig exists. queue the music

yep, love seeing WLC squirm a little..

Paul W he's sitting in a huge pile of bullshit.

Any need for the caps lock?

Roberta Folks www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

Immortality undermines beauty

Alexander Jakubsen www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Then you were paying attention. Compatibilism is illogical and intuitively wrong. It's an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.

david gamble kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Jotun Heim www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Jotun Heim www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

Jotun Heim www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Filipe Dias www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Filipe Dias www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

That's quite the straw-man argument! And a lie, by the way.

@@arvaneret_329 it's an inference to the best explanation based on seeing his work. He has nothing but hollow assertions. He misrepresents physics, history, psychology and even biology in order to bolster his arguments. He starts from the conclusion that God exists - because he wants God to exist - and then works backward. My comment was a pithy distillation of his entire epistemology.

She never said that.

It sure as hell isn't us.

Łukasz Wybrańczyk www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Łukasz Wybrańczyk www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Craig is easily outmatched here by Kagan, not because he is wrong but because he doesn't have a nimble enough intellect in this contest. He misses opportunity after opportunity to call Kagan on begging the question. And his point of the meaningless of all ethical action without a transcendental basis is perfectly and intuitively (to anyone both thoughtful and honest) true, but he didn't have the chops to press it. If you really think Kagan was correct here, and say f'instance, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche were wrong, perhaps you're approaching this with the glib shallowness of Kagan. The premise Kagan lays out early on: wrong action is 'whether your behavior hurts people or fails to help them', is often true, but it's very incomplete basis for ethics. That's neither here nor there, however, the real problem is that it's merely his view with no basis beyond his assertion. He might agree with this, but if he did it would completely undermine his later contention that what the Nazis did was objectively wrong. (Others would agree with his personal view--one would hope--but unfortunately consensus doesn't establish truth.) He couldn't help himself reaching for that 'objective'. That's because he is better than his philosophy. He knows deeply, beyond rationality, that it was wrong and he's correct. Objectively correct. Just not on account of his reasoning. Rather than gas on forever about this, I'd encourage those of you with a smug assurance that Kagan's really nailed the truth here to listen to another unbeliever who was a lot less cocky and a lot more honest. He's the late A.A. Leff, a Yale law professor who died far to young. Read his thirteen page review of a book written by another law professor, Roberto Unger. In the book ('Knowledge and Politics'), Unger is trying to find a grounding for morality and law minus a transcendental source, precisely what Kagan is attempting. Leff critiques the book in the guise of the devil and points out the problems Unger faces to establish that grounding. Kagan has the same problems and they are insurmountable. The review is both funny and profound and worth your time if you're serious about this, the most important issue humans face this century. That's not my contention, that comes from yet another honest unbeliever, Edward O. Wilson, in his book 'Consilience'. Anyhow, here's the link to Leff's book review: digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3822&context=fss_papers

I completely agree. God never solves the problem of objective morality, it's only an easy answer for the highly gullible.

spinosauruskin It's a way of moving the goalpost someplace we can't see it so they can claim the question is answered over there.

FrankLightheart It's a good thing that no education person argues "Because God says it's wrong." The answer would be because the very idea of murder is contrary to the nature of God. Since God created everything his nature is the basis for all truth within that creation. It follows that since his nature is against murder, then it is also wrong to murder within his creation.

Sgman1991 All you've done is redefine "God" to mean "morality". You may as well tell me "morality" is "morality". If you tell me reality is shaped in such a way as to make murder immoral, then murder is still wrong based on the physical consequences of that action. We can base morality off of real outcomes and still not need to refer to a higher power or rely on it to behave morally. When you get down to it, saying, "God IS morality" is literally just another way of saying, "Because God says so".

FrankLightheart It really isn't equivalent at all. To say that morality is simply what God says is to say that he arbitrarily chooses things to be good and bad, and that He exists above his moral commandments. To say that morality is found in God's fundamental nature is to say that it objectively exists non-arbitrarily for all beings, including God, himself. "If you tell me reality is shaped in such a way as to make murder immoral, then murder is still wrong based on the physical consequences of that action. We can base morality off of real outcomes and still not need to refer to a higher power or rely on it to behave morally" It is shaped in such a way BECAUSE God made it. The very fact that God made people in his image is what makes people moral beings. He is an inherently moral being, and so are we. To base morality off of outcomes is nothing more than giving arbitrary* moral value to things, such as human happiness. *By arbitrary I mean scientifically arbitrary. There is no purely scientific reason that would lead to the conclusion of human happiness having objective value.

Geoff Stockton www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

don’t think so

@@jw-rx8gn I agree, Craig gets stomped all the time.

I've seen many WLC debates and I too had that feeling. I don't agree with WLC's views but I always think he does very strong in debates. Maybe he wasn't feeling good or there were other extenuating circumstances. I had never heard of Shelly Kagan but I was impressed. Kagan did a good job but I don't think it was solely his performance that was the reason for the debate result, WLC seemed uncharacteristically off in this debate.

@@cwjalexx The real reason is that he had to actually have an exchange with a professional philosopher, instead of some popular writer or the like.

Cause he has john Malkovichs voice

Boy do I have a Yale course for you

狗撸撸 www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

狗撸撸 www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Shelly's "social contract" was a disaster in terms of argument. He got humiliated

Courtney Dozier www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

Slightly overstated, I think. o_O

Simon Finley o_O

www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Brascofarian www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

You have to hermeneut the exegesis correctly before you can understand. The intent behind his tone was pretty clear. Adenine, guanine, thymine, cytosine, therefore moral. Typical Godhater.

Don't forget the specified sequential information.

I didn't forget it's just that it's so mainstream science that I felt it didn't need mentioning it's practically a given. Come on man. It's a simple as 4 character binary.

Matt Bell thinks by appealing to gods nature you can side step the dilemma. HAR!

Darius "Just Another Atheist" M those features are what good entails and are not things separate from good.

I disagree. I think Craig came to win. I just don't find that Craig is genuine.

Elijah Tay www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

Elijah Tay www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

@@Micscience Would you have to give proof for that.

@@cameronclark8298 You want me to give you proof for an opinion?

Shelly is a girl's name, no?

ACharmedEarthling www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

@@kirankareem7648 I'm not sure of the relevance of your posting that. Thankfully, nobody in this debate is arguing for the moral teachings of Islam (which, for your information, I am already familiar with and I completely reject). Also, I don't know if you follow the same beliefs or not, but the author of the document to which you linked, is clearly an Arab Supremacist. In his own words: "I have established in my book Minanur-Rahman that the words of Arabic have issued from the mouth of God and that this is the only language which is the language of the Most Holy God and is the most ancient tongue, and is the fountainhead of all types of knowledge, and is the mother of all languages, and is the first and last throne of Divine revelation. It is the first throne of Divine revelation because Arabic was the language of God that was with God since the beginning. Then that language came down to the world and people converted it into their respective languages. It is the last throne of Divine revelation, inasmuch as the last book of God, which is the Holy Quran, was revealed in Arabic. " That's his explanation for a religion that originated in Saudi Arabia being in Arabic. Maybe think about how this stuff comes across to somebody who's not Arab...

ACharmedEarthling www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

@@shaguftahamid6877 ok, so you're a bot, presumably. Why am I not surprised...

_"that the only way you can have "objective moral accountability" from the Theist's perspective"_ in the meantime still waiting for a way you can have "objective moral accountability" from the ATheist's perspective (which Kagan & Harris still haven't come up with) _"that anything not explicitly forbidden in the Bible, is "objectively" morally acceptable"_ cant comment on the bible as I haven't read it yet but what you describe is basically how human law works

SuperSupermanX1999 No that is complete nonsense, clearly you don't know the meaning of the words that you are using. God's omniscience is irrelevant to determinism, the universe could be indeterministic and an omniscient god by definition would still know the future.Determinism refers to causal inevitability, whether it is known or not by an agent has no relevance.

Oners82 If God is truly omniscient then he cannot possibly be wrong about anything. It also means that he knows what we will do in the future before we do it. Since his knowledge cannot possibly be wrong, we cannot possibly go against what he knows about the future. If he knows that I will turn right at the next junction I come to, then I have no choice but to turn right. If I turned left then God would have been wrong. Since he cannot be wrong I must turn right. Hence everything we do is predetermined by Gods omniscience.

SuperSupermanX1999 Again you are demonstrating your ignorance of simple concepts. I'll try and say this simpler so you understand. Yes an omniscient god knows what we will do in the future. SO WHAT? THAT IS NOT DETERMINISM. In an indeterministic universe an omniscient god would still know what you are going to do next. Determinism refers to CAUSAL interaction. A god who has knowledge of future events but does not cause them to happen has got nothing to do with determinism by definition. This really isn't difficult to understand mate.

Oners82 God knows the future. God's knowledge cannot be wrong. Therefore the future is decided before it happens. Therefore we are pre-destined/determined/whatever you want to call it. Saying that an omniscient God can exist in an indeterministic universe is an oxymoron.

Oners82 So the solution is insults? Nice. Most people change their knowledge based on what is observed in the universe. If God's knowledge cannot possibly be wrong then the universe changes to account for his knowledge. Everything happens because God knew it would. He doesn't have to actively cause anything, the simple fact that he is omniscient is enough.

+L Hauteclocque Craig is very good in a formal debate setting. He can give his canned speech, full of bad philosophy without interruption. He can ignore criticisms and does so _ad nauseum_. In a "friendly dialogue" where someone like Kagan can point out his inanities right away, Craig falters badly. That's why he almost always is only seen in formal debates.

Gene Fletcher www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Gene Fletcher www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

..do u even read what u type?

Rosanna Miller www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Kiran Kareem shut the hell up lol

Jeff Vader www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

@@kirankareem7648 Thank you Kiran. Does this work explain how Islam deals with the Euthyphro Dilemma? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma I find this fatal deceptively simple argument fatal to all religions who rely on some divine commander to promulgate right and wrong. Islam in this respect has no better answer than Christianity.

Beautifully written

Amazing comment 👏🏼

The www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Wow... it's been a long time since I read such kindergarden liberal garbage... Face reality already. The audacity...

Is this morally right what you just said?

we, or at least some of us theists don't use 'religion' as a standard for objective morality, we use God as the Standard and the Foundation for objective morality. according to Christianity, God Is Necessary, not contingent, He Is Love, He Is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and He Is Perfect, so He Is rightly the Foundation for objective morality.

jon keene I don't think morality is the right term. You either sin against god or you don't. I'm not trying to put down your religion but it sounds like a dictatorship.

jon keene It (god) can't be Love and Omnipotent. If it was, there would have been no fall, as it is also Omniscient, it would have foreseen the fall, thus creation could not be perfect. And since the bible is the big book of multiple choice, morality in it is subjective.

according to dictionary.reference.com, a dictator is defined as follows: "a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession." now according to this definition, i agree that Christianity is similar to a Dictatorship in that Christianity, like a usual dictatorship, has a Ruler Who exercises absolute Power, has absolute and unrestricted control, and He has no hereditary succession in the way that i presume the definition is referring. yet God is not just a mere person like you and i, or like any other ruler, and He isn't part of a government for precisely the reason that He's Perfect on His Own. yes, we can try to sin against God or try to refrain from doing so, and that's what defines what is right or wrong. to God, Who Is morally Perfect, doing what is contrary to His morally Perfect Nature is immoral; it is a sin. likewise, doing what is in agreement with His morally Perfect Nature is moral; it is the opposite of sinning. in Christianity, sinning and doing something immoral are basically the same thing, and doing the opposite of sinning; that is, doing an act that is pleasing to God, and doing a moral act are basically the same thing. i'm not sure why morality would be the incorrect term to use here.

vgerdj but on the other hand, just because God foresaw the fall doesn't mean He would only be rational for choosing not to let it happen. what would you say if the fall had been said to of happened and God wasn't said to be Omniscient? sense God is also said to be all-Intelligent, you may say that He would of foresaw the likelihood of humans sinning, which would lead to the fall. but it's not about whether God foresaw the likelihood or guarantee of it happening. it's about humans choosing to sin or not sin. i believe the story of the fall is meant to show that humans have intrinsically sinful natures that they willingly go along with; Adam and Eve had a choice to obey God, but they preferred to obey the devil, whether they knew that was the devil or not. therefore, they deserve punishment. God also foresaw redemption through Jesus Christ and many people preferring to obey Him in the end, which wouldn't happen if it weren't for the fall. as for the Bible being "the big book of multiple choice," i don't know what you mean by that or why that would entail that subjective moral values govern this reality rather than objective moral values.

A brutally honest view. Morality is not an unchanging and eternally and everywhere true thing like math and logic or physics. Rather, it is a shifting thing, like the weather, like biology, and like plate tectonics. One cannot say that a particular action is moral or immoral without citing a person or a god expressing a preference for it or against it.

That they were offered that option formally does not mean they were in a position to accept it. I think you needed to not ignore that objection not least as it is after all the very heart of the Nurnberg dilemma, still topical today. That is minor though, we agree there is no one or only 'absolute' right or good, only fools saying there is.

@@hinteregions I inadvertently found the video that was the basis for my comment kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b5iFmaR7152baWQ.html

The other issue is that God is a greater version of the self. Everyone's personal God agrees with them on every aspect of morality. This means if they can find a reason sufficient to themself, it is sufficient to God.

CarefulAtheist www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

CarefulAtheist www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

daaamn somebody has been shrooming hard!

king www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

king www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

king www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

ApaX1981 Marvelous Book On the Topic. Gift❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

ApaX1981 www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

JS841

www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

ApaX1981 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

@J w Okay, who would you suggest I'd take advice from then?

@J w Shelly Kagan?

@J w They could also take advice from Graham Oppy

@Edward Russell Laura sad

Gabriel Concha www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Je Suis Ce Que Je Suis www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

@@kirankareem7648 - Yeah, let's go with the religion that makes so little sense that it's believers chose a symbol which itself makes no sense. They think that a star can be visible in front of a crescent Moon. Just because I have issues with Christians taking the Bible literally doesn't mean I'm conducive to any other religions.

Sorry, but even adding "by christian definition" or "he is really good" does NOT make it objective. Objects DONT make judgements. There are no objective judgements. Judgements are all subjective.

Aguijon1982 then all morals are subjective opinions, which are not absolute and are not real. therefore, there's no reason to have moral or believe in other people's moral at all. there's only consensus or mutual agreement (i.e. law) that regulates human behavior. all morals are false and delusional. what Alexander is referring to is 'natural law' of morality, which explains that morality is not based on opinions but it is a part of nature. only by believing in God, there can be 'natural' law because God's laws were naturally created to exist. it's not subjective opinions that can be changed by individuals, but it is what it is by nature. good is good and bad is bad according to God, the Creator of the universe. that is what Christian morality is based on.

You completely missunderstood what i said. I didnt said that chrsitians´s imaginary friend doesnt makes judgements, i said that that is not objective. There is NOTHING objective about some dude (a SUBJECT) in the sky with alleged "superpowers" making judgements. Even if you throw in meaningless sentences like "by christian definition" or "but he is good and the creator of the unvierse". You DONT understand what objective means. And to try to fix it adding "superpowers", "perfection", "unchangeness" authority and whatever to a SUBJECT wont make his judgements objective. Superpowers, goodness, perfection, unchangeness and so on have NOTHING to do with objectivity.

Aguijon1982 i think we are both trying to explain to you something you just can't understand.. it's like explaining 3D concept to a 2D character. i know what you are saying but you've gotta understand that people have different perspective and reasoning about morality. Put it simply, God is objective because He is God. if you can't understand that, then oh well.. not really my problem. but there are millions of people in this world that believe this to be the truth. good day.

Judgements and commandments, since they come from subjects, are always subjective. The fact that you add authority, power and a bunch of adjectives to the subject who made them, is irrelevant.

Exactly. This is it. People act like morality is some mysterious thing, but it's an evolved set of social practices that led to better survival.

Borna Genn www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Borna Genn www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Kiran Kareem www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Kiran Kareem kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

+SacredTankX I would like to know your position on morality.

+Michael Natal My position on morality is that it is neither absolute nor subjective. It is a combination of both. It is objective in the sense that the data is not contingent upon anything but it is not absolute in the sense that we are thinking agents making choices. Many theists would ask, "what is the standard or the foundation of your morality" and I would declare that my morality is derived and founded on objective evidence but rationalized by individuals evaluating the objective evidence. Let us use an example to demonstrate this .... 1) Is murder wrong? Many theists would simply declare that murder is wrong in all situations since it is not in gods nature, or the bible says that it is wrong and there moral foundation is derived from the bible. There are many things wrong with this. Firstly, it would still mean that morality is subjective. Morality would be contingent upon a god making it arbitrary. Secondly, this only tells you what to do not why you ought to do it. It gives no reasons why murder is wrong, in other words, it has no back-bone. Thirdly, with an absolute morality it means you have to throw out your own moral compass and judgement. How did you they even come to the conclusion that there god is moral without using there own subjective morality to evaluate the stories in the bible? You would need to use your own morality to declare that the bible is moral. Also, they never provide evidence for an absolute morality, nor do they demonstrate that they have the correct one. From my view, murder is not always wrong. There are many situations where I can think of that murder is justified. For instance, if an intruder breaks into your home and it about to decapitate your mothers head, I would declare that the murder of the intruder is justified in this scenario. So how did I formulate this? step 1) Appeal to objective evidence so morality isn't SIMPLY subjective--We know our body has brain receptors that cause a sensation of agony and pain. This is simply a fact that cannot be refuted. There is more evidence, but I will only list one. step 2) Rationalize the situation using the evidence to come to a conclusion --- We understand that the killings of innocent people would not be justified as it would cause unwarranted suffering and agony. The reason we should not do this is because the sensation of agony is not tolerable to most people and they do not wish to have such torment placed upon them. In conclusion, a morality that is debated, scrutinized, evaluated, discussed, rationalized, and well-thought out using objective evidence is a much better moral system that an absolute morality that is declared upon us. With an absolute morality you have barbaric evaluations of morality such as the stoning of homosexuals, death for apostasy, and much more.

+Josh Boulton I don't see how you can declare anything to be objectivly wrong or right with or without a god. They would have to demonstrate that A) objective morality exists and B) that no other world view can account for this except for theres and this includes any possibility that we may have not discovered yet which included magic pixies ..... I would be very interested seeing any theist do this.

*Argument 1: Firstly a definition: by God, Christians mean a being that is non-contingent and good. Since God is good he must be moral. Since God is non-contingent, he must be both timeless and unchanging, and so his nature too must have these attributes.Even if you disagree on the definitions, this means that for theists morality is not contingent.* This is not an argument it is simply an assertion. Demonstrate how you know god is good and tell me the mechanism that you used to evaluate this. It also does not make sense to claim a god is non-contingent. I suggest you look up the definition of non-contingent because it means "does not depend on anything." If god is good/moral then morality is contingent UPON A GOD. *Argument 2:Indeed, the Old Testament laws are about what you must and mustn’t do. As to the why, the apostles put the question to Jesus:“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”* The bible is the claim - not the demonstration. Demonstrate the claims in the bible to be true. *Argument 3: Not quite. A theist first comes to the conclusion that the Bible is true (how they do it is another matter ofc), and from there they come to the definition of what is moral (i.e. the quote above). So it’s not circular.* Great now demonstrate the bible is true instead of making unfounded assertions *Argument 4: “Murder is not always wrong.” Interestingly, a Christian would say that murder IS always wrong, yet still agree with you that you would be justified to act in self-defence in your example, even if doing so might result in the intruder’s death. Indeed, murder is roughly defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” So there’s a clear distinction between killing and murder, which your example (and the law, and religion) highlights* Again..... you have not demonstrated anything... your whole arguement rests on a god being true and you have not demonstrated this to be true.

*Ah sorry, I thought we were debating "Is God necessary for morality?", not "does God exist?"* Well fine we can also talk about this topic if you want. When I am talking about morality I am talking about well-being. The fact that we care about well-being is subjective but if we agree that well-being matters then we can make objective assessments in regards to that. If you think morality is something else then I hate to say it I simply am not interested unless you can demonstrate your claim instead of using the word "if". *In your arguments you pointed out that even if God were real, morality still didn't make sense for theists. That's all I was answering: if God were to exist, the theist foundation of absolute morality is neither contingent, circular or arbitrary.* There is so many directions I could go with this statement. The absolute morality you speak of that some theists profess is as such: the stoning of homosexuals, the enslavement of females, and death for apostasy? I do not want an absolute morality - I want a morality that is reasoned, well thought-out, scrutinized, debated, and evaluated harshly. You still have not demonstrated how it is not circular, arbitrary, or contingent all you have done is make assertions. Either god says something is moral because he has good reasons and the nature of the morality depends on the reasons, or whatever god says is automatically moral due to his nature making it circular and making morality depend on a god. *Argument 1: I agree with your definition of non-contingent :). However if God is non-contingent, and his nature is to be moral, then morality must be non-contingent.* The fact that this somehow makes sense to you is just bewildering. Without even getting into the fact that you made around four assertions without backing them up and keep using the word 'if' .... you are wording this completely wrong. Let us say for the sake of argument that gods existence does not depend on anything and that morality is simply in his nature. That still makes morality DEPENDENT on his existence. If your god stopped existence then so would morality (hence morality is dependent on your god). *God and his nature cannot be disassociated, ie his nature wasn't brought into existence by God.* Okay so I won't even go down the route of how you determined this and the mechanism you used. I also won't go down the route that you are simply trying to answer a problem by inserting a larger problem that we now also have no answer for (how did god come to be, and how did his nature come to be)....but great! That still doesn't tell me how your argument isn't circular or how morality still does not depend on his existence because if your god stopped existing then it would also follow that morality stops existing. *And if God's nature is timeless and unchanging, then it cannot depend on anything. Saying morality is contingent is like saying that God's timelessness is contingent on there being a God. That's correct linguistically, but not semantically.* If I were to say I have a wooden desk and you asked 'oh cool what kind of wood is it made out of' and I start to say well it isn't made out of any wood, and I start sayings things like... well actually this desk is larger then my house and it has spikes coming out of it and it has fire that sparks up randomly - then What i am describing has just BUTCHERED the definition of a desk to the point where I have no idea what you are talking about. When you start saying things are timeless, and unchanging , I don't even know what that means. How can something EXIST for 0 seconds. If I told you I had a billion dollars in my pocket that existed for zero seconds then we can concluded it never existed in the first place. EXISTENCE IS TEMPORAL and when you start saying something exists OUTSIDE OF TIME it butchers the definition of EXISTENCE. *As I said in my previous answer, how theists come to the conclusion that the Bible is true is another debate. A quite fascinating one to be sure, but not one I have time to get into over youtube comments :)* right.... this is still a bunch of word salad and throwing around the word "if" doesn't help an argument... I could say.... if a magical pixie existed and If it had the power to make the earth well then it follows that it is possible if all this were true. These are not arguments nor evidence and the fact you do not see this is outstanding to me. *Well, what do you think of the fact that country's laws make a distinction between unlawful killing (murder) and lawful killing (self-defence etc.)? All I'm saying is that your discovery that certain kinds of killing can be moral is nothing new: most codes of law and religions have been saying this for millennia.* We do this because we understand that the foundation of morality is well-being. We can make objective assessments in regards to well-being. For instance, killing a bunch of people randomly is in conflict with there well being therefor it is objectively wrong. An intruder interfering into someones home is in conflict with the home-owners well-being and we can conclude this to be objectively wrong. The fact that we care about well-being in the first place is subjective and I concede that, but that is what I am talking about when I talk about morality and generally people would agree because those that do not care about well being CEASE to exist since life is GENERALLY pleasurable to death and when it is not then those people die out.

heracles www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

heracles www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Filipe www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Filipe Dias www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Filipe Dias kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Filipe Dias kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Filipe Dias kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Theo JS841

@@kirankareem7648 JS841?

Theo Skeptomai www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Theo www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

@@kirankareem7648 If you would like me to read any material you must explain why I should. I presume you can speak for yourself. Am I right?

He pulled a Trump card 😂😂😂

SinHurr www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

SinHurr www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

Only to support his presidency a few years later. Well no love for consistency lost there I guess

zzzubrrr www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

canteluna www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

CC www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

CC Shredder kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Kagan is right... so since we don't need god for morality, and the moral argument is one of the arguments for the existence of a god.... then you've just argued that god doesn't exist. Thank you

UP-timism www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

@@Roper122 the existence of God doesn't rest on arguments of men or what a man thinks in his mind. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. It is by faith we know that God exists.

@@upsax7576 So is that your way of saying... you can't answer the argument?

UP-timism Trendyproductsjazzmusic kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZejq8ebst7acnk.html

Tasmir aziz I think he was just saying that that is a naturalistic way of looking at it, not that he himself believes in it

@@rockwitharms7455 seems like intellectual stonewalling but ok. I never understood how Craig's arguments are anything more than assertions. I think he is saying that the naturalistic explanation itself makes sense because of a higher order or a transcendent cause.

Tasmir aziz it makes no sense to me that naturalism can produce morality. Morality seems to be necessarily transcendent. If I am simply a biological machine than nothing I think, do, or say, is voluntary. If naturalism is true I am not culpable for anything. The person committed to a naturalistic world view assumes without basis that humans not only have free will but also have a self. I just find it utterly incoherent. I am astonished that a discussion like this could last so long when the central issue is so obviously tilting the scales towards the necessity of a God.

@@sheldonberg125 Here's the simplest way I know to say the argument: evolution selected on a group level for cooperation among individuals of a species and the human mind is special by virtue of self reflection and abstract thought. As can be shown through game theory and statistical physics once you have such a group of individuals morality as well as a sense of justice and fairness necessarily result as an emergent behavior. I'm overstating the strength of the conclusions from the references I'm using but I don't think it's too much of a stretch. Here's the references on the topic: Natural Justice by Ken Binmore Sociophysics by Serge Galam P.S.: The entire idea of emergent behavior in physics puts a large dent in the walking ball of atoms caricature in my view.

Tasmir aziz www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Me: When will nonbelievers and fake believers no longer be the vast majority of vile and destructive sociopaths?

This is funny argument from ignorant though 😂😂😂. I didn't see any children killed by Holy Trinity but I saw young children killed by doctors (abortionist) sometimes think bro... 😂😂😂

James Richard Wiley www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg

James Richard Wiley www.alislam.org/book/philosophy-teachings-islam/

You've fallen into the same trap Craig did. Meaning can be ephemeral and still be profound. The kind of meaning in the pleasures of eating great food and looking at a particularly beautiful sunrise doesn't last - the moment happens once and it's only carried via representation in your memory for however long that lasts, provided it's not forgotten - but that does not remove the meaning it generated in the moment, surely. The food still tasted fantastic and the sunrise was still beautiful. Meaning =/= eternal significance. It's not some causal antecedent that must have continual effects on the natural world.

@@jackliechtenstein660 'provided it's not forgotten'

@@Johnson-lu8ox Again, that means that it DID have meaning - it's just not eternal. The meaning is just as profound even if instantaneous.

@@Johnson-lu8ox I'll make it easier for you: I enjoyed an incredible meal today. Some day, I will die and that experience will no longer be retold or remembered (other than in some atomic sense) - but it'd be silly to argue that no enjoyment of the food occurred at all. That the "enjoyment" will ultimately be forgotten does not mean that it never occurred. Saying "X is meaningless in the moment because it will be meaningless in the long run" is erroneous in that sense.

kissfan7 www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Captain Crunched www.alislam.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Philosophy-of-the-Teachings-of-Islam-755x1024.jpg