Naturalism, Theism, and Moral Ontology: A Reply to William Lane Craig

Jeffery Jay Lowder considers William Lane Craig’s metaethical argument for God’s existence. Roughly, the argument is that the existence of objective moral values provides strong evidence for God’s existence. I consider one by one Craig’s various reasons in support of the argument’s major premise, namely, that objective moral values and the nonexistence of God are at odds with each other. I show that Craig’s supporting arguments play fast and loose with the meaning of objectivity, and that they have no force whatsoever. I conclude that Craig’s argument does not succeed in showing that the existence of objective moral values, by itself, makes God’s existence more probable than not.

[Koran]

A brilliant analysis! Looking forward to future videos.

[wiidlund]

Great video! Please do more of these. I loved the debate Reasonable Doubt arranged, but it had (as has been pointed out by numerous people before) too large a scope to be as comprehensive as this video is. Many of the topics you covered in that debate could, I think, easily be expanded to whole videos. I would love to watch them.

[joelgarland]

Can you make your next video analyzing the third option that apparently avoids the Euthyphro Dilemma ? And whether it actually does, or is a sound objection

[benwatkins]

Excellent video! Quality content! Very refreshing!

[INTJerk]

I'm not sure one can prove definitively that moral values exist solely based on experience or intuition. However, if there is no God, and the universe exists purposely, then morals would just be illusions. No one particular act can be considered good or evil apart from opinion or preference.

In other words, if there is no meaning or goal to life, then who is to say how one ought to live?