Pixie runs a site callled "on creationism and why it's nonsense." he attacks my moral argument:
That;s the old version but I'll answer it any way, The new version is found: https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/morality-warrants-belief-in-god.html,
Px With regards to (1), I agree, but it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not. We can feel moral outrage at how the Romans would watch people being eating by wild animals at the circuses, but these were very popular events 2000 years ago. What people consider good and bad is not set in stone, but is part of their culture.
Answer:(1) I speak of universal pertaining to cultures and civilization not all individuals, (2) People do violate the code they know is right that's why we have guilt feelings.
This brings us to (2), I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic; again think about the Roman circuses or consider changing attitudes to slavery. That said, I do not think this greatly impacts his argument.
Answer: fine that does not change my point it just means I have less to answer, As I pointed out we need an answer that preserves the normative nature of moral axioms
Px:These are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures. By amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community. The basic rights of an individual who belongs to the in-group is preserved across all cultures because that in-group gets to set the rules. The in-group does not want people stealing from them or killing them, so develop rules to protect themselves from that, and morality springs from those rules.
Answer: That does answer my point. My argument says naturalistic answers reduce morality to less than normative if it;s just social contract we can have a social contract that allows us to conduct a holocaust, Whose to say it's wrong?
In (3), Joe points out that genetic (and implicitly social and cultural) explanations fail to offer the basis of a morality - get cannot turn "is" into "ought". But why should we suppose there is such a basis? Maybe there is no moral foundation, and morality is merely what we all agree it is. How else can we explain the changes in morality between cultures?
That Contradicts Premise (1) which you already agreed to, Really that's giving me the argument
Or maybe there is an objective morality that exists in the abstract, just as geometry does. Again, should we suppose there is an "ought"?
Answer: moral axioms are not like mathematics you have to have a theory of what grounds the ought, there is no calculation involved.
With regards to (4), Joe says social contract theory (SCT) "offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored". What he fails to note is that that is what we observe! Morality does change, morality can indeed be ignored.
Answer: morality is taught by cultures and thus it will bear the stamp of a given time or place but it always has a grounding in universal ought or there is no moral basis Tat;s the gist of my argument, its in premise1 and you agreed to it,
When we get to (5), Joe seems to be saying that God (according to Christianity) is good and judging what is right and wrong. It sounds like he sees morality as separate to God. There is an objective morality, and, say slavery is objectively wrong. God, given his situation, is particular able at discerning that fact, and relaying that to mankind.
Answer: Morality is not separate, God is objective God's universal perspective gives morality it;s universal basis,
However, when we look at (6), it looks like Joe's position is the reverse of that. Now God is the "source of grounding", indicating that slavery is wrong because God says it is. It must be noted that Joe does not talk about objective morality, so he is not on the weak ground that Craig is at this point. For Joe, "Universal Moral Law" means laws that come from God, and are universal because God is universal.
Answer: to the comfrey I just got though telling you morality is based upon God they are not separate, it's God's judgment of what is right and wrong,
So how can we relate that to (5)? I guess what Joe means is that God chooses what is right or wrong. Slavery is morally wrong because God has arbitrarily decided slavery will be wrong. However, as per (5), as the creator he is adept at deciding what will be morally wrong, so he made a good choice to make slavery morally.
Answer: not arbitrary it's based upon God's character
Good on what basis? Well, one that aligns with our ideas of right and wrong, i.e., what God decided would be good is what God decided would be good! Frankly, the argument make as much sense without (5) in my opinion.
Answer: It's not arbitrary it's based upon God's character which is love.
In summary, the argument comes down to:
People universally understand right and wrong (1)
Therefore there must be some underlying and fundamental morality (2)
God is the best explanation of that (3-6)
Therefore God likely exists
Answer: that is an inadequate understanding of the argument. There is a universal morality but argent is based upon the fact that approaches that don't embody God have basis for grounding of the axioms,