Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”
To be precise, this paper applies to WLC’s moral argument for God’s existence as follows. 1. WLC argues that God exists because objective moral values and duties exist. 2. Critics (theist, agnostic, and atheist) of WLC’s moral argument have pointed out that, according to one version of moral realism, moral truths are necessary truths. Necessary truths neither … Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”
Does Evolution “Explain” Objective Morality? A Reply to Jerry Coyne
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne recently wrote about Leah Libresco’s conversion from atheism to Catholicism based on a moral argument for God’s existence. In his article, Coyne promotes the idea, which he has done many times before, that biological evolution somehow “explains” objective morality. While there is a sense in which Coyne is correct, that has … Does Evolution “Explain” Objective Morality? A Reply to Jerry Coyne
Amoral Atheism Part 2
Physics cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong. No one says that is a defect of physics because that’s not what physics is about. Like physics, atheism is also not about morality. So why should it be a defect of atheism that it cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong? Your … Amoral Atheism Part 2
Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?
Those of you have been following my writing for years know that I am very cautious about questioning another person’s integrity. (If you’re not familiar with, do a search on Jeff Lowder, William Lane Craig, and dishonesty or lying.) But this time I have stumbled across something so egregious I am having a very hard time coming … Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?
An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism
Here is an F-inductive argument for theism based on ontologically objective moral values. Note that this argument assumes that such things exist. If you don’t think they exist, then you may want to skip reading this post. As usual, let B be our background information; E be the evidence to be explained (in this case, the existence of … An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism
Amoral Atheism
Atheism is neither moral nor immoral; rather, it is amoral. By itself, atheism does not make it obligatory, permitted, or forbidden to do anything. It’s not an ethical theory. Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Why most Animals are not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig’s Moral Argument for God
LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
What’s So Great about What’s So Great about Christianity? – Part 2
As we saw in my last post, Dinesh D’Souza’s defense of the “moral laws presume a moral lawgiver” argument fails. In this post I want to comment on what D’Souza has to say about atheist “attempt[s] to meet this challenge” (232). 1.Like many partisan diatribes, D’Souza’s book says nothing about the strongest arguments and objections … What’s So Great about <I>What’s So Great about Christianity?</I> – Part 2
What’s So Great about What’s So Great about Christianity?
A few years ago, Dinesh D’Souza wrote a book titled, What’s So Great about Christianity? His book contains numerous arguments for theism and against atheism. Since I mentioned D’Souza’s version of a moral argument for theism in my last post, I want to expand on it here. In chapter twenty, “Natural Law and Divine Law: The Objective … What’s So Great about <I>What’s So Great about Christianity?</I>
How Not to Refute an Argument from Moral Law for God’s Existence
Jerry Coyne just posted an article titled, “Paul Bloom debunks the ‘Moral Law argument for God.’” I found myself getting irritated as I read the article because it’s obvious Coyne doesn’t know what he is talking about. Before we get to Bloom’s findings, what is the “moral law argument”? It’s simply this: human altruism can’t … How Not to Refute an Argument from Moral Law for God’s Existence