The Moral Argument

Does God exist? If objective moral facts exist how do we ground them? This video looks at these questions.

Our defense of moral realism:

Special thanks to Maximus Confesses for reviewing and helping with the content for this video. To follow Max, and a bunch of other Catholic writers, for their posts and dank memes, subscribe over on medium, and/or like their Facebook group:

Sources:
Real Ethics - John Rist
Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology - Mark D. Linville

*If you are caught excessively commenting, being disrespectful, insulting, or derailing then your comments will be removed. If you do not like it you can watch this video:

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[Ikthus]

The strongest version of the moral argument thus far, in my opinion. My faith was being attacked, I needed this badly. Thank you so much.

[RottenDoctorGonzo]

Probably my favourite YouTube channel. Christian apologetics is needed. Some of us do it a little here and there, but you lot prepare and present this stuff to spread it far, all while remaining characteristically "YouTube". You're doing a service and we thank you for it.

[CoffeeBreaks]

You're fantastic. I can't believe I just found you

[ericcraig]

List the moral facts. List the moral duties.

[NathanaelAruval]

I‘d answer the Euthyphron-Dilemma like this:

P1: Something is ‚good‘ if it does what it was created for, fulfilling the purpose of it‘s existence. (Like, a hammer that loses it‘s head when swinging it is not a good hammer. In German, the word for virtue, ‚Tugend‘ even comes from the verb ‚taugen‘, meaning ‚being useful‘.)
P2: We were created with the purpose of being imagers of God (Genesis 1: 26-27).
C1: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of God.
P3: God is Love (1. John 4:8).
C2: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of Love.

[evanminton]

I've never encountered this version of The Moral Argument prior to watching this video yesterday. The version I defend is Craig's modus tollens version. I would disagree that it doesn't account for why God is needed to ground morality. It's true that it isn't explained in the premise, but whenever I or Craig give the DEFENSE of the first premise "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist", that's when the unpacking of why a being like God is needed for morality to be objective. In fact, I do severe unpacking of this in chapter 4 of my book "The Case For The One True God" and explain that not only is God needed to ground morality, but specifically the uniquely Christian conception of God is needed.


That said, I like your syllogism in that it cuts out the middle man and basically entails why God must ground morality right in the syllogism, rather than being part of a defense of the syllogism. It's nice to see a familiar topic dealt with from a slightly different angle.

[wchfg]

I can sense this is good, useful, logical and clearly discussed content. I'm rewatching it many times to wrap my head around it. It is deep.

[nicolasgiliberti]

Im a theologist and im also studying a philosophy degree now; your content is really cool dude, keep goin ;)

[kylealandercivilianname]

I was scrolling through Facebook then I got a notification that IP uploaded a video I and I was like "hell ya"

[editorsphilosophynow]

Whoever writes this stuff is a philosopher after my own heart! (Not that I always agree with you; but I agree with what you're doing and how your mind works...)

[usdhfvdycjd]

Morality is subjective because it's based on our feelings and emotions.If a 10 year old kid's mother died he would cry and he would be sad but it's an objective fact that his mother died, how he feels about it is subjective.If that 10 year old kid's mother died, i would just be sorry for it, i wouldn't cry because i wasn't her son, he was.It's an important thing who you were to the person that died.That's why morality is subjective.

[DefenderOfChrist_]

The Moral Argument is the greatest argument for the existence of God Amen✝️✝️🙏🏻🙏🏻✝️

[AskMeMaths-mq]

Mathematics is a rational enterprise, but surely it doesn't follow that mathematical facts are grounded in a sentient being, does it? It just means that mathematical facts are discovered through reason.

[Bane_questionmark]

The end conclusion ties into an atheist argument I see a lot. Well, I guess it's not so much an argument as an assumption they hold that's demonstrated through the way they structure their arguments. They'll say something along the lines of "God must be evil because he'll send you to hell for *disagreeing with him*".

The entire point, which you arrive at here, is that God does not hold opinions, his Word is simply the optimal way to act. In the same way an omniscient being cannot be wrong, an omniscient being cannot "hold an opinion". An opinion is simply a view of what "ought to be", rather than the factual "is". If the creator of the universe thought something "ought to be" a certain way, it would be so. His moral "opinions" is the exact same thing as the moral nature of the world.

[Matt-qlcj]

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:29

[erobles]

Why don't write a book about this? I definitely would not mind reading it.

[yehoshuamelech]

The most adequate explanation of the moral argument in our time. Very great stuff mate!

[Xenosaurian]

Good presentation! As a side note, this is yet another aspect that ought to make you reconsider your approach to interpreting Genesis, where you either have God call a perfect and mature world a good thing, or a continually evolving and progressing world with torture and rape a "good" thing.

[yteuropehdgaming]

In reference to P3, one could potentially argue that moral disagreements are rather indicative of morality being subjective, because had there been a set of objective moral facts equal to the laws of logic, they would've been followed by everyone.

[-brutal-.]

“If objective moral facts and duties exist…….” How then would we define or categorize morality based on societal norms and standards? Definitely neither under Objective(because not all societal morals are universal) nor subjective morality(it’s widely accepted within the society).
Am example;
Pedophilia is morally wrong where I come from. In certain societies, it’s okay. The Bible, Quran, Torah do not condemn it. But you can be Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever and still believe it’s morally wrong based on how and where you were raised or reside. (It is “societal” morality)
If morality is grounded in a supernatural being, and this being doesn’t condemn pedophilia, then that means we as humans defined it immoral. God was not involved. Then why are we against it yet God isn’t?
Meaning morality is neither objective nor subjective.