LogFAQs > #955763018

TurtleInFreedom posted...

I really doubt you saw the whole thing.

Sure did

The moral arguments Craig makes goes inadequately answered.

There is no answer to mysterious ways beyond calling it dumb and I as I did putting that along side claiming Gods actions are perfection.

"The lord works in mysterious ways" isnt an argument, its a (Lazy) evasion of one

Craig asks if morality can be objective without God, and Hitchens never goes around to answering it. It doesn't mean God exists, but it undermines any moral authority atheism might have, which makes theism a better moral choice.

Not really.

The idea that morality is man made therefore subject to man made flaws doesn't undermine it.

Theism doesn't get more credibility by saying "Well what if we pretend soneone exists and then pretend he is perfect and then pretend he has morals then by default whatever morals I make up now are better" that's absurd.

if anything it gets less credibility

Look at the US slave trade and civil war. Stonewall Jackson didn't like slavery and was against it as a practice.... at least he claimed to be..

But he killed his own countrymen in the tens of thousands and did so gladly to defend the slave trade because he believed (or at least pretended to believe) slavery was part of Gods grand plan and Gods morality was absolute. Black peoples inferiority to their white masters was a shame but God said so so hands tied.

One of the examples Craig uses as objective morality is rape, which ignoring the animal Kingdom something which is near exclusively only ever justified in a religious context. At least in several hundred years.

Hell even if objective morality exists as flawed human beings our interpretation of it (Especially with a being so utterly awful at communication) makes our interpretation and implementation of it subjective regardless.

Going back to rape, the objective wrong: different regions have different age of consents, people debate whether someone drunk can consent or of lying about how rich you are counts.

Even the most obvious and blunt looking moral line has nuance.

At best the notion of objective morality is a meaningless distinction.

At worst its inferior, idiotic and harmful.

It's a gigantic foolish fallacy and a total croc

I remember Sam Harris taking a crack at William Lane Craig some years later, but he fails to answer the same question either.

I haven't seen that but probably because it's a dumb question

Making absurd statements and then demanding people jump down your rabbit hole or else you win isn't how rational people have conversations, it's how small children argue.

It's dumb at the best of times, let alone when the person you're talking too is under a time limit.

---

^ Hey now that's completely unfair!
https://imgur.com/yPw05Ob