This Moral Dilemma is for ATHEISTS Too

[@ettispageddy]

It's unclear to me what having a personal force adds to the authority of moral facts and duties. From my perspective, it intuitively seems like the literal truth and existence of these facts and duties is sufficient to fully explain the authoritative force of it. Also, your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma arguably still raises the question of whether there is, for example, reasons for God valuing what he values. If there are, then those reasons are the true source of morality, and if there aren't, then morality still becomes a matter of God's arbitration and stance on morality, which steers dangerously close to relativism.

[@benisbrave5290]

I typically detest debate videos because all it seems to achieve is the person agreeing with whoever is arguing the case they already agree with and spamming 'Glen lost' or 'Hahaha the atheist argument is inherently flawed' in the KZbin comments. Whoever has the most comments wins. However, what I love is these response videos that come out as a result. I love your further explanation of your points Glen, as well as highlighting issues that regular viewers will have missed in the original debate video. These types of videos are infinitely more thought provoking and engaging than debates I find. Keep up the good work!

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Thanks. It's hard to add a video after a debate without it sounding like special pleading or gloating or whatever. But glad you found this one useful.

[@mystrength5640]

A book of Interest was recently written By Caren Imes on Slavery during OLD testament! She was interviewed by Sean McDowell ! It encompasses much in today’s world in 2024..

[@kendallburks]

This video is awesome, thank you! Very illuminating take on this tricky topic.

[@Getafixmovies]

This was great! Over the years I've seen a lot of discussion around the Euthyphro Dilemma and this was definitely one of the better ones. Referencing the Trinitarian God (unsurprisingly!) makes it much more compelling than (eg William Lane Craig's) "OmniGod", Also, though i'd heard the Brierley/Dawkins bit before, i've not seen the link drawn between that and the Euthyphro dilemma previously and that was super helpful!

[@euanthompson]

Every worldview needs something arbitrary about it. I don't know why atheists only have an issue with that when it comes to God.

[@georgedoyle2487]

“Arbitrary” Not sure about “arbitrary” apart from in the case of a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism which is clearly a perfect illustration of an ultimately meaningless and arbitrary world view - yes? But every world view certainly requires metaphysical realities and transcendental categories such as prescriptive laws of logic and morals and ethics, that is TRUTH and VALUE claims. You “OUGHT” to follow the truth and you “OUGHT” to be moral is a metaphysical presupposition. But its not arbitrary if you have a prime reality that is a metaphysical grounding in the form of a ultimate intelligence that is personal and moral. Plus we have OCAMMS RAZOR AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON. Moreover, no atheist actually lives as though they are nothing more substantive than the by product of the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities - right? That is why militant atheists still religiously get out of bed in the morning and rage against Christ and pretend that his teachings are evil!! As Nietzsche wrote in "Beyond Good and Evil," “No one is such a liar as an indignant man.” When you lie, stereotype, straw man and malign Christ and freedom of religious expression you are not raging against the MACHINE, you’re raging FOR THE MACHINE. “Philosophy always buries its undertakers." Indeed, you can't get away from philosophy. It's like logic. To deny it is to use it.” C. S. Lewis famously wrote.

[@siondafydd]

I think the only reasonable answer Christians can give for this is that everything is made purely for the Glory of God (which is what good is), and is good by definition of God being what ought be glorified.

[@georgedoyle2487]

Which is actually better? The twentieth century’s Communist atheist regimes that were defined by atheism through their anti religious hate propaganda, their sophisticated THOUGHT POLICE and their death camps? Or Islamic religious apartheid that is defined by its unsophisticated THOUGHT POLICE and death sentences for those who try to leave Islam and apostatise. Which is better, being ruled by the left wing militant atheism THOUGHT POLICE or sharia law? I mean, it’s like asking, which is better, syphilis or gonorrhea?

[@jeanbrown4736]

Well spoken Glen and all so true

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Despite the fact that his understanding of morality/ethics is FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@TheWorldTeacher so flawed that you couldn't make a case, just complaining.

[@HearGodsWord]

Hey Glen, this made me want to re-watch the Dillahunty debate, which helped me move towards Christianity.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

That’s awesome to hear! I only rewatched it the other day. I was reminded of my assessment straight after the debate: all my best moments were when my mouth was shut. Either Justin bringing up the Nazi’s or Matt’s own goals made the whole thing worthwhile 😂

[@betsalprince]

​@@SpeakLifeMedia The idea that all humans beings deserve equal protection doesn't really exist in scripture though. What Israelites did to their enemies under divine commandment alone demonstrates this (or Yahweh drowning babies via flood in Genesis). What you're doing is pointing to verses that talk about equality in terms of salvation (such as Galatians 3:28) or that both man and woman were created in God's image (Gen 1:27) and just reading into the text to say that Christianity invented egalitarian human rights. Your best moments were certainly when you didn't speak, because everything that came out of it was utter nonsense.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@betsalprince the idea is in scripture, so that reply wasn't one of your best moments. At least you agree that there's are actually verses highlighting equality. The modern conception of human rights was very much based on Christianity, whether you choose to acknowledge it or ignore it.

[@betsalprince]

@@HearGodsWord Point to a specific verse then. Soteriological equality and social equality are not the same thing. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or ignore it, what you identify in the modern concept of human rights also exist in philosophies that predate Christianity, such as Buddhism and Stoicism. Christianity does not have a monopoly on these concepts. If you look into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you'll find various religious and philosophical contributions, not just Christianity.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

@@betsalprince You're right that soteriological equality does not equal social equality and that the flow from one to the other took a very long time. But historically speaking the flow happened. Demonstrably. And it happened nowhere else. Obviously. "Rights", "limited governments", "social contract", "parliaments", "crimes against humanity" were all Christian concepts to the point where John Peters Humphrey, the author of draft one of the UDHR, said he'd given the world a Christian morality without the "tommyrot". Humanity in the image of God - page one of the Bible - is the foundation of any humanism worthy of the name. So says Jurgen Habermas, John Gray, Tom Holland, Larry Siedentop, etc. With the exception of Holland (who's started going to church since exploring the history), these are all atheists who nevertheless cannot deny the debt we owe to the Bible.

[@emmalawson-]

Takes me back to A Level philosophy! Wish I’d had this talk back then!

[@dmi3kno]

The IKEA argument is brilliant! Make sure to cut 30:28-32:00 into shorts! Just pure brilliance

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Good idea :)

[@TheWorldTeacher]

Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. ;)

[@ramigilneas9274]

Of course the problem is that lots of other societies came up with similar rules long before Christianity existed. Also, it looks more like Christianity or the people who invented the stories of the gospels borrowed a lot of ideas from the Greek.

[@dmi3kno]

@@ramigilneas9274 Glen is not claiming that Christianity is unique in recognizing transcendent values. That's precisely the point: the world is build in such a way that anyone can discover these values even without any revelation. The question is where those values come from?

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@dmi3kno Easy, humans invented concepts like morality. That’s why we see them constantly changing with the exceptions of very few very basic rules that apply in almost all situations. It’s also true for Christian morals. What modern Christians believe today would gave been considered to be heretical a few centuries ago or even 2k years ago.

[@mikenielsen8781]

10:12 "What does God add to our understanding of morality?" I think the question is ill posed. It rather should be "What does morality add to our understanding of God?" People posing the question in the first formulation don't seem to have a very well developed understanding of God as the source and center of all reality. Truth, beauty and goodness are all extensions of the foundation of personal reality: the Divine Love of the Father, the Father of Love, the face the Infinite turns to his children.

[@simonskinner1450]

God does reason being Good, there are two statutes in God's law, the moral and the immoral. Some things are not just banned, God sees the harm and attributes blame. Not many realise God has two statutes, there are do's and don'ts to ensure the imputation of righteousness or goodness, is established by reasoning that what does no harm or is not blameworthy. I show a chart in my Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity ' that has both statutes as lists of opposing reasoned activities that are acceptable or not.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

The answer is yes (to the question "is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious - or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?") Justification is being declared pious due to being loved by God. Sanctification - is being pious (through faith) in order to be loved by God. For the latter see Romans 8:13.

[@danie-v2o]

But what is the quantum predictions of the meta-future between the relationship of the finite and the infinite! And the probability of the transcendence of the transformations by the transfer of the hyper-reality of Christ?

[@Alien1375]

Making up an answer doesn't mean the answer is right (or even necessary).

[@mystrength5640]

Without Gods Christian LAWS of Love, integrity, Strength, Faith, Gods Forgiveness to us and his Truth, His indwelling Holy Spirit offered to us.. From the Book of Ephesians 6… This world Would have more near Barbarism than we already have.. BECAUSE the pagan and secular world is dominating. And People have FORGOTTEN about God! Great Video. Tnx ✝️

[@MartinPolitzer-m5j]

Love your answer to the last question - Jesus or bust

[@samdg1234]

Steamer basically admitted with Sean McDowell that the Euthyphro dilemma had been answered in a way that he had no way to counter.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Oh wow, did he? I watched that dialogue but maybe not closely enough. It was good

[@samdg1234]

@@SpeakLifeMedia I’ll find it and link to it.

[@samdg1234]

I meant Sherman of course. The downside to responding with a phone.

[@samdg1234]

@@SpeakLifeMedia Here, kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWS0YYqqm7hgd5Ysi=9uJN60QwzWoN_QXt&t=3053 is Sean asking Michael specifically, "So, before we go on, does my response adequately resolve the Euthyphro dilemma?" To which Michael responds, "Yes. Yes,Ii think it does. I think that was a good response. Yes I do." Michael, then, if I understand what he questions, is how do we know this about God. If I'd had a chance to respond to that, I think I'd have then moved to suggest that it is on reason. All I see the theist doing here (Sean, in this case) is positing what might make morality objective. I'm going to post how William Lane Craig laid part of this thesis in debate with Sam Harris. This is William Lane Craig right from the debate transcript. The question before us this evening, then, is, “what is the best foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties? What grounds them? What makes certain actions objectively good or evil, right or wrong?” In tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions: 1. If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. 2. If God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. Now notice that these are conditional claims. I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right that atheism is true. That wouldn’t affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would, then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist. So to respond to what Micheal asks at the end of this section, "That's why I asked the next, follow-up question, "But how do you know that? Because, again, back to where we began -fallibilism, we're all fallible. You're not God, and neither am I. And that takes you nicely into what is said in the last paragraph quoted from Craig above. And Craig's reasoning seems to align with the following statements from atheists, Michael Ruse, a noted philosopher of science, explains, "The position of the modern evolutionist is that morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when someone says, 'love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory." A theist’s moral epistemology need not differ broadly from the humanist’s own moral epistemology. Epistemological objections are thus red herrings which need not detain us. I’m contending that theism is necessary that there might be moral goods and duties, not that we might discern the moral goods and duties that there are. As Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation (if they really exist). If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?” - William Lane Craig "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." - Richard Dawkins We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me…. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of fact, will not take you to morality. - Kai Nielsen All of these guys seem to totally get it, that apart from God, there isn't any such thing as objective morality.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Thanks so much. Very helpful

[@neilbradley100]

As an atheist I disagree that the dilemma applies to me. The dilemma assumes there is an objective good, and I simply disagree with that. So there is no dilemma. I do not believe in objective morals, which are different from place to place and time to time, and different even between two individuals who share a time and place. Whatever most people in a time and place agree is good will be called the moral position, and there will always be a minority who disagree. However, some behaviours will almost always be considered good in general because of their success in helping small tribes to survive over thousands of very dangerous years. Tribes that too many individuals who were selfish or killed his neighbours were less likely to survive, so their genes were less likely to survive too.

[@samdg1234]

I think that I agree with at least some of what you say. I find the title unusual. It seems to me that the atheist escapes dealing with the dilemma at all since they don’t posit God to begin with. The dilemma for the atheist is that they can live as if objective morality (ergo God) does not exist. edit: The word can in the last sentence above should have been *can't,* so that, The dilemma for the atheist is that they *can't* live as if objective morality (ergo God) does not exist. They borrow (however unacknowledged) the foundation of good (or any arbiter of value) which only God can provide.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Everyone who uses terms like “goodness” and morality must consider where that goodness comes from. You have considered these things and reject the first horn of the dilemma (that The Good exists objectively). You are then left with the second horn: that “goodness” is simply what nature has produced (in the form of evolutionary, cultural and psychological forces). Euthyphro, when applied to the atheist’s ‘source of life’ (evolution), is helpful for clarifying what they mean by “good” - as you have done with your thoughtful comment. But the dilemma definitely applies to you. You’ve chosen one of the horns rather than the other but that doesn’t mean the dilemma is illegitimately posed to you.

[@samdg1234]

@@SpeakLifeMedia Glen seems to use the word "believe" many times in this video. and I wonder if he ever considers whether the "belief" claimed (by both Michael and Matt) is justified or warranted. I think it would be warranted to examine this. I'm reminded of a discussion between Alex O'Connor and Graham Oppy where they at least touch upon the topic here, kzbin.info/www/bejne/boLKnWOdqpZ1orMsi=rOhuwqBJItaElkaw&t=2158 in a chapter titled, "Can people be mistaken about their own beliefs?" I'll add a bit more to this in a follow-up comment. I want to re-listen to that chapter. There was something I recall thinking that they both overlooked.

[@neilbradley100]

@@SpeakLifeMedia I thought the "dilemma" related to that fact that BOTH horns assume "objective" morals is a thing. I reject their objective nature for the reasons outlined in my original post, and I also reject the proposal that a God even gave us his "subjective" opinions on what is moral. My belief that morals are subjective, and are simply the results of at least group evolutionary pressure, means I do have a dilemma to consider, do I? If I do, then what is the nature of the dilemma that I still need to consider?

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Remember that Euthyphro is framed in terms of a metaphysics alien to both Christian theism and atheism. But in reframing it for other metaphysical systems, something of the same dilemma arises. Is goodness a thing to be recognised by our source of life or is goodness simply a thing determined by our source of life? For your average ancient pagan the source of life is different to Plato which is different to a classical theist which is different to an atheist. But as soon as we recognise that atheists too have a source of life (the evolutionary process) then Euthyphro bites. And it sounds like you’ve made your peace with the latter option mentioned above: goodness is reducible completely to natural processes. I give examples in the video of why that is an unacceptable position from my point of view.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

There is no such thing as 'objective' morality. Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are morally appropriate (ought to occur in a certain dilemma) from those inappropriate (ought not to occur in a certain dilemma). Like all cognitive assessments, moral assessments always and necessarily involve the subject's own biases, experience, attitude, and other personal considerations. Therefore, morality is _always and necessarily_ SUBJECTIVE. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral, just as everyone else does.

[@armandvega2752]

That way of thinking becomes obsolete when tyrants like Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Tokugawa come along. Might makes right is and forever will be the final conclusion of subjective morality. The idea of intrinsic moral value and moral equality regardless of race, sex, and creed has never been universal or self evident. These concepts came from the Church which took time to spread across the world. You’re quick to dismiss objective morality as nonsense, but you fail to recognize that the concept of objective morality is what has allowed civilization to get where it is now. Objective morality led to the gradual abolition of slavery worldwide. Objective morality led to the development of human rights and education. Objective morality led to the establishment of charities, hospitals, schools, and orphanages across the globe. Objective morality led to the promotion of women’s rights. Subjective morality CANNOT and DID NOT create any of the things I listed. Only objective morality can. Society cannot function without some semblance of moral objectivity. If something isn’t allowed to be objectively moral, then we might as well bring back the Jim Crow laws, foot binding, and child marriage. None of the people who committed those atrocities believed in objective morality.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@armandvega2752 No. My way of thinking hasn't anything to do with those tyrants. I, and I alone, determine which human behaviors are moral, amoral, or immoral. Not them. Not you. Not anyone else. If you disagree, then kindly identify who _exactly_ is forming my own moral assessments on my behalf.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@armandvega2752 I don't hold to the addage that "might makes right." But your cowardice and belligerence in forming that _false_ projection of my convictions is noted.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@armandvega2752 Race, sex, and creeds have nothing to do with forming moral assessments.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@armandvega2752 Which intentions, decisions, or actions of mine have had any detrimental effect upon civilization? You will not answer this straightforward question DIRECTLY. Cowards never answer straightforward questions concerning their false, ignorant, and malicious accusations. You will be no different. WATCH!!!

[@maxdoubt5219]

Is something good because a god _sees_ it's good or _says_ it's good? How is that a question for atheists?

[@betsalprince]

Posing theological dilemmas to atheists seems to be a common trend among apologists these days. It's a desperate sign of a dying religion.

[@HearGodsWord]

The poor responses from athiests is a sign of their dying belief.

[@betsalprince]

@@HearGodsWord Atheism is not a belief system in itself; it's the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Atheism is actually rising by the way, especially in the West, unlike Christianity, which is declining (most Christians acknowledge this because this is an unfortunate fact for them). Cute response though.

[@HearGodsWord]

@betsalprince thanks for the cute response, but I guess you needed to reassure yourself. It's right to call it a belief, if you want to add the word system in order to disagree then that's you're choice, but it won't make any difference. I made no observation on whether the number of people with certain beliefs in the West, which certainly makes your response much more cute than mine. I think that has shown who's desperate.

[@betsalprince]

@@HearGodsWord The word 'system' makes no difference to my response. Do you think not believing in Santa Claus is a belief that you hold? Decline in religious affiliation is what I meant by "dying". If you're using the word "dying" in a different sense, then you'll need to articulate to the other person what you mean by it, otherwise we're just going to talk past each other.

[@HearGodsWord]

@betsalprince I'm glad you agree that adding the word system in your response made no difference! Please feel free to respond with yet more things we agree on. It's very funny how you want to use Santa Clause as a comparison to athiesm - I'm sure you didn't mean for that to be ironic.

[@gavincargill-valuetheperson]

What happened after God said that certain things were ‘Good’ and even ‘Very Good’ in Genesis? What happened that we adopted the superlative GREAT? Even one of the best selling business books is called ‘Good to Great’. Yet most of us would recognise that when someone is called a ‘Good’ person it is the almost the highest accolade, the ultimate, the Omega! Perhaps we need to redeem the word ‘Good’ and this video is a ‘Good’ place to start???

[@maxdoubt5219]

Atheist: "My personal, subjective moral outlook says it's _never_ moral to dump a 64 oz soda over a stranger's head just to be a bully. What about you?" Xian: "I agree, of course." Atheist: "I also feel it's _never_ moral to make two bears attack and rip apart 42 children because they teased a man about his bald head. You too?" Xian: "No, I am forbidden to agree about that. God did that and so for me to agree would be an admission that God acted immorally, meaning Man _can_ judge God, which for Xians like me is a strict taboo." Atheist: "Would you like to change your earlier answer about the soda or stick with your reprehensible, disgraceful, disgusting moral priorities? Let's cut to the chase: are there _any_ acts you feel are _never_ moral?" Xian: "Just one, I guess: disobedience." The bible is less a guide for morality for Xians than a straitjacket on morality.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Maximus to the Max, thanks for your contribution. I feel tricked because I saw the sacred Trinity of Three Saints R.D. MD MS and came to watch. Within a moment, I saw it was a charlatan misusing divinity as clickbait. Naturally, I never saw more than 34 seconds before I felt gastric acid arise in my throat. If not for the power of prayer to the F.S. Monster, I swear I would have covered my keyboard.🤮 Do you ever wonder what is going on in the integrity stakes? It confuses me that if Scrivs had something worthwhile to offer, why would he open with a misleading image?

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Your thingy kinda falls apart if it’s bad to dump soda on someone and be a bully, but then it’s okay for 42 young men to bully an old man. If bullying is always wrong, can retribution be justified?

[@alanmill793]

Euthyphro is not a dilemma when you are not grounding moral values on good. Good is not objective. Good is subjective and a subjective measure can't be used as a grounding for moral values. What may be good for me may be bad for you and vice versa. These horns are only a dilemma if you are relying on good as a grounding for moral obligation and values. Both horns of the dilemma involve alleged gods. It was a problem for pantheists, and it is a problem for monotheists as it undermines their claims for grounding moral obligation and moral values. It doesn't solve monotheism's inability to get an ought from an is and ground moral obligation in a non-optional reason that can't be dismissed out of hand or denied. Most people in a society generally agree subjectively on what is good in order for society to function as harmoniously as possible, but not everyone is going to agree and some people will seek to exploit others, because what people ought to do is not always what they actually do. You don't have to read too far into the Bible to know that the actions of this alleged god are not what society generally calls good. Biblical morality is relative. Christians admit there is one covenant of rules for some people and another covenant of rules for other people, and that is moral relativism. The Christian who accepts that whatever their alleged god commands is moral and good, accepts that their alleged god commands acts that are not generally considered good and are considered immoral. Christianity doesn't even get to the point of trying to ground moral values as it is unable to ground moral obligation in the first place, with a non-optional reason that can get an ought from an is, and not be dismissed out of hand or denied. You can't ground moral obligation on obeying an alleged god's alleged will/commands and you can't ground moral values on a subjective concept like good.

[@samdg1234]

Michael Shermer has made some significant concessions since Ayaan without acknowledging them as such. Ask me where.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

(He's also made some eye opening assertions... like affirming Gregory S Paul's study from nearly 20 years ago)... But what are the concessions you're thinking of?

[@samdg1234]

@ Have you ever heard of Antony Flew’s Invisible gardener?

[@samdg1234]

@@SpeakLifeMedia Nuts! I gave you a lengthy reply this morning and I don't see it. I'll try again.

[@samdg1234]

@@SpeakLifeMedia The Invisible Gardener was a parable (or an analogy) popularized by Antony Flew in the heyday of his atheism. I can’t suggest with anything like certainty what Flew’s purpose was, but it doesn’t seem unlikely that, at a minimum, it was going to lessen the faith, particularly of the one unsure why he believes. Nevertheless, I don’t think anything in it could be seen as a caricature. Here is R.C. Sproul’s telling of it, kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIurdKB9nZxgi5Ysi=i2SB55MLxYcBFsuw&t=2443 Sproul ends his telling with, “What's the difference between an invisible immaterial gardener that nobody ever sees and no garden at all. *The garden,* that's what. We still haven't got an answer how a garden got in the middle of that parable.” Cool. I’m content with that representation. I’ll assert a being capable of causing what needs to be explained. Carl Sagan appears to have wanted to go much further. At least if Michael Shermer’s telling is accurate. But regardless of Sagan’s motives, it is Shermer that I’m focusing on. So, if you wouldn’t mind, you could watch the KZbin short titled, “Is God an Invisible Dragon? | Michael Shermer | Carl Sagan #shorts” There is a significant difference between Shermer’s Invisible Dragon and Sproul’s Invisible Gardener. It is clear that the explorer believed there was a gardener because the garden required an explanation. It was a thing that could be explained by random events. It is totally unclear why Shermer believes in the Invisible Dragon. He doesn’t even go as far as to state that his belief is on the basis of the testimony of a trusted friend or parent. He believes in an Invisible Dragon for apparently no reason at all. That is pure caricature and propaganda if intended as an illustration of theistic belief. Is there anyone who holds such beliefs. And Shermer would often employ such weak apologetics for atheism. You did a video on the "You Deny One Less God" tripe. And Shermer has trafficked in that as well, even at the Oxford Union. So, where are these significant concessions I alluded to. You and I Glen, already briefly discussed his acceptance of Sean McDowell’s having adequately solved the Euthyphro dilemma. That is quite a concession on Michael's part. I see that Michael Shermer is set to release a book titled, “Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Matters”. Let’s hope his integrity holds and he makes no mention of the Euthyphro being anything like an Achilles' heel to theism or Christianity. He just acknowledged that the ‘dilemma’ was well responded to. So, with his “Invisible Dragon” and his “"You Deny One Less God" type arguments one might feel confident how Michael would answer the question, “Are there good reasons to believe in God?” In fact, Michael rhetorically asks that question in response to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s ("Why I am Now a Christian") essay of about a year ago in his own essay, “Why I Am Not a Christian”. Michael answers his own question, in what many of his followers would find a surprising, “I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments and that, …” Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather when I first read that. And I can’t imagine that it was anything other than a need to, come somewhat clean, if he wished to continue to dialog with his friend - Ayaan.

[@simonskinner1450]

God has two statutes or reasoned lists of do's and don'ts, to be just you must do no harm by doing good, and when you do harm make it good again. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which shows how the two statutes work, as good and evil.

[@Chidds]

If we assume that what we call objective good (although I disagree with the notion of objective morality) is merely a result of the evolutionary process, no theist who believes good is a reflection of a god's nature has any grounds by which to object. Both are a fluke. Given a different god or different evolutionary requirement what we consider good could be wildly different.

[@mandypants226]

Ya the truth is the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because there neither an objective standard of good nor is there a god. Both choices are moot because neither exist

[@mike16apha16]

so funny mustache man did nothing wrong

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

That’s like a Christian saying “I don’t have to answer Euthyphro because I don’t believe in Euthyphro’s gods.” The dilemma can be asked of anyone’s source of life: Ancient Greeks, Christians and atheists alike. The relationship of evolution to goodness needs thinking through. Euthyphro is very helpful here.

[@mandypants226]

@@SpeakLifeMedia So? I reject the premises of this so called dilemma. Last I checked no one has demonstrated that there is an objective standard of “good” nor has anyone demonstrated any god to exist. You’re welcome to try

[@Chidds]

​@@mike16apha16It depends on your moral standards. No objective morality does not necessitate moral nihilism.

[@Chidds]

​@@SpeakLifeMediaThe point of the Euthyphro dilemma is it is talking about morality as an objective concept. If morality is not objective then the dilemma ceases to be effective.

[@martinlag1]

Since physical objects have impacts, there is metaphysics, like mathematics and shadows and mass. This is not special and has no theological implications. Since we have living beings which interact and relate to eachother, there are morals and emotions and beauty. Goodness WITHOUT a capital "G". This is not special and not magical and has no theological implaications. It is NOT supernatural as Glen claims. Suppose evolution selects for survivabilily, as it does, and goodness is merely a subset or attribute of survival. How is that theistic? I cannot follow Glen here, since it is a clear presupposition.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

All this means is that you opt for the other horn of the dilemma to Dr Shermer - the one Dawkins and Dillahunty opt for. On that horn it’s true that you have no supernatural but you also think that “goodness” boils down to survival. Along with Dillahunty you’re committed to thinking human beings have no intrinsic value and along with Dawkins you’re committed to saying that the belief rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact we evolved 5 fingers rather than 6.

[@KRGruner]

Oh what a bunch of utter bullshit! How you can show your face in public after this is beyond me. The Euthyphro dilemma stands!

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

What do you mean it stands? Stands for Euthyphro, for Socrates, for Platonists? For Christians? But not for atheists? Just because you’re caught on one horn of the dilemma (considering goodness to be arbitrary and pragmatic) doesn’t mean you’ve escaped the force of Socrates’ question.

[@KRGruner]

@@SpeakLifeMedia It stands as a dilemma that CANNOT be solved by positing a "God." God solves NOTHING. The Natural Law, though, DOES!

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Mate, what are you on about? For millennia theists have been giving an answer to it, beginning with Plato, the framer of the dilemma.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

By the way, answering ‘natural law’ is to choose one of the two horns of the dilemma. Which is fine but it commits you to a supernaturalism at least as extravagant as Plato’s.

[@KRGruner]

@@SpeakLifeMedia More bullshit, eh? That's all you got? Everyone agrees an answer has been given? And the answer is "God"? I think not! This is STILL being debated today. Now, the OBVIOUS answer is that there is no need for God to determine the Good. The Natural Law does this just fine.

[@mandypants226]

So this is pretty simple to me. Gravity is an objective phenomenon in our universe. Not matter your opinion things are pulled down and don’t float away. If you jump off your roof no matter who you are and what you think you will be pulled to the ground. The point here is you cannot violate this rule and you will pay a price if you try to. Compare this to morals. If I am in violation of this moral rule I pay no price. Reality does nothing to me. Actually , the very fact you can violate morality means it is not objective. You live in a world that does permit immorality. If miser was objectively wrong then we wouldn’t be able to do it. Just like we cannot jump off a roof and drift upward. Theist don’t understand what objective means.

[@christopherneedham9584]

Sure. That’s an argument you can make. The issue is that if you actually want to bite the bullet that morality is not objective, then you also have to bite the bullet that no matter what someone does, you cannot say they are wrong. As soon as you say something like “rape is wrong” you either have to say that it’s just your opinion, and its not really wrong, but you just don't like it. But there is no reason why someone else who likes rape, can’t go around raping people. Or, you have to say that you are so valuable compared to someone that your opinion that rape is wrong should prevent someone else from doing it. The first option is intellectually consistent, and evil. The second is so arrogant, and effectively makes you the author of morality. Most people believe that rape is actually wrong, and that regardless of anyone’s belief on the subject, it’s still wrong. But that cannot be grounded in an atheistic worldview. Also, your logic can be used to determine that logic is not real. I can say "If Every A is a B and every B is a C, then A is not a C." there is no repercussions to violating the traditional laws of logic. Therefore your argument would mean that there is no objectively true laws of logic. This has the interesting effect of undermining your argument, since you are appealing to logic to make your argument, and your argument undermines logic, so therefore your argument is self refuting.

[@mandypants226]

@@christopherneedham9584 I don’t see anywhere in my post a logical syllogism for you ya say my logic could be used to determine logic is not real. To begin with it makes no sense to say one used logic to determine logic is not real. To use logic logic to determine there is no logic is a non sequitur because you are using the very thing you said is not real. Also, objectivity means that something is the case regardless of option or feelings. This is obviously not the case with morality. What confuses people is there are objective fact about morality if you choose to act moral. First you have to ground morality to something which is usually human well being. Once you established the goal is human wellbeing you can begin to ascertain what acts contribute to well being and which don’t. But this is different from saying morality is an objective phenomenon in reality because you don’t have to act moral. And not every situation calls for morals. Take the example of rape. I personally find it disgusting and would not do it but suppose you have a species where the females are just fundamentally not attracted to the males who want to to reproduce with them. If the males do not rape the females the species will die. Therefore from an evolutionary perspective rape is the only thing that will ensure reproduction which is all evolution cares about so now there is a situation where you can argue rape was necessary. It is still immoral because it was not promoting the well being of the victims but the goal was not well being. The goal was reproduction so the species will survive. Are you going to say nature is “wrong?” Nature just is.

[@mikenielsen8781]

"Reality does nothing to me". But it does. You just don't know it yet. Your view is something like the child who sets the curtains on fire and says "see, nothing bad happens". Nothing bad happens within the scope of their childishly constrained foresight. But the consequences eventually become real. Divine justice is tempered by divine mercy -- by which I mean the delay in the outworking of the laws of divine justice to allow for sincere repentance. It doesn't take a great deal of cosmic insight to see that. The fact that you can, as you call it, "violate morality" is evidence of the love and forebearance of the Creator, who will not force the Divine Will on anyone -- it's completely and entirely voluntary. God respects personal sovereignty in the one dimension in which an individual's will is absolute: accepting or rejecting the will of God. And God will extend the hand of love and mercy in spite of one's childish petulance. But justice demands that there's a time limit -- a point at which it's obvious that your have rejected, and will forever reject, rehabilitation. That's the point at which the opportunity for redemption is lost. Forever. By your own choice.

[@tommarshall7247]

Hi Mandy, I think that it is an assumption that is a tad ill- thought- out to say that if you violate a moral law, there is no consequence. Divide that into 2- obviously, if there is a God, then violating a moral law will lead to some kind of consequence, but let's park that. Even looking at it without the presence of God, ( let's assume for now that, like Shermer says, we have a moral universe, with real right and wrong) an action surely always has a consequence, and if morality exists, then shouldn't we expect a moral or immoral action result in a consequence, whether that is seen or unseen? E.g. if I sleep with my neighbour's wife, if I lie, if I steal, if I treat others unfairly- there is a price to pay somewhere, depending on the magnitude of what I do. Even if nobody else ever finds out, something has changed and there will be a knock- on effect. Jesus in Matthew chapters 5-7 was unusual in adding intention and thought to the kind of normal crimes you might think of, but, whilst you might not turn your hatred of your boss into violence, it's still going to leave scars and affect you, which in turn will affect others, if you sit around fantasising about beating them up. Make a habit of lying- even to yourself, and you lose your compass and end up a right mess. So, perhaps it is more like gravity than even most Christians think.

[@kalebroberts5518]

You don't seem to understand what objective means. The very fact that there is some sort of standard in which you can violate or not violate means that there is something above it that sets that standard. You are free to murder, kill, steal, etc... but Id argue that you dont due to your moral standard. Even you typing this comment reveals you have some sort of virtue of truth that makes you feel the need to reply to this video. Without any virtue (and therefore God), everything loses meaning. FYI you are not a purely mechanical being that only makes rational decisions, studies into conscience and common sense refute that idea unless you are delusional. I can choose to fight gravity by jumping against it, but that isn't a rebuttal on whether gravity exists as a force that holds everything in order. Just as I can violate my conscience, that doesn't mean my conscience doesn't exist. We can disagree on the details of the math, but to deny the existence of math is nonsensical.

[@dmi3kno]

First!

[@AnotherViewer]

The Euthyphro dilemma isn't a problem atheists have to “solve”-it's an issue for theistic moral frameworks that try to ground morality in a deity. Christianity can’t "solve" Euthyphro-it’s stuck choosing either arbitrary divine command or an independent moral standard, which both weaken the claim that morality uniquely comes from God.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Not even Plato, the framer of the dilemma, is stuck. Let alone Christians, for whom God’s triune life defines both goodness and the divine being. But atheists also need to answer the question: Is “goodness” reducible to evolutionary processes. If Yes they’re like Dillahunty and Dawkins. If No they’re like Shermer. There are problems either way.

[@KRGruner]

@@SpeakLifeMedia Nonsense! Goodness is OBVIOUSLY tied to evolutionary processes, or more precisely, the evolutionary process that guides the avoidance of death. The ONLY thing one needs to ground morality is that life is preferable to death, an obvious minimal requirement for evolution. "Life: here is not meant to refer to the life of the phenotype per se, but to the genotype, which means, for humans, that the Good is what sustains life over multi-generational repeated interactions. Put that in your stupid pipe and smoke it.

[@AnotherViewer]

@@SpeakLifeMedia The dilemma exposes the tension in grounding morality in a divine figure, yet Christians sidestep it by declaring God’s ‘triune life’ as goodness itself-hardly an answer, more of an assertion with no more weight than saying 'goodness just is.' But since we're on the subject, let’s turn that critical lens back around. When it comes to 'goodness' being reducible to evolutionary processes, it’s curious you’d call this a problem while sidestepping that your view depends on accepting an unverifiable supernatural entity. In reality, evolutionary processes are observable, measurable, and deeply influential in human behavior and ethics. So, while atheists like Dawkins or Shermer are open about the challenges in defining goodness without resorting to mysticism, at least our answers rest on what we know, not on a demand that others 'just believe.' Your framing implies Christians don’t face their own share of inconsistencies, but here we are-dancing around a dilemma Plato first raised two thousand years ago that’s still unanswered by divine fiat.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

A Christian metaphysic says that “at bottom” there is love-personal, other-centred, life-giving love. Dawkins’ metaphysic says that “at bottom there is nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Owning this metaphysic, Dawkins admits that the conviction “rape is wrong” is as arbitrary as the fact we’ve evolved 5 fingers not 6. If you don’t see the moral imbecility here, I can’t help you.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

There is no “morality” here worthy of the name. Any number of ethical systems could be erected that prefer life over death. The question remains unanswered: whose life, whose death and who gets to say. Given there’s no moral judge above the system the answer defaults to: the powerful. Not good.

[@maxdoubt5219]

Pure philosophical gobbledygook. To call something "objective" is to say that it exists _outside the mind._ Does morality exist outside of minds? No! 😄

[@micahandeleanordeegan5071]

Sez who?

[@rogersacco4624]

None of this makes the bible valid

[@HearGodsWord]

If that's the case, then it also doesn't make the Bible invalid either

[@mandypants226]

Why are you going on a platform that shares your world view to claim you solved the objective morality problem and atheist can’t. Shouldn’t you be talking to the side that disagrees with you? Ya I’m really sure I solved this but I’m not going to argue with people who disagree with me I’m just gonna talk to a guy who is an idiot like me so he will agree. Strong stuff

[@joshuapizarro3231]

Lol. This guys debated multiple atheists who are well versed and know the counter positions really well.

[@mannythegrandfather2291]

You sound like an ignorant person

[@eliotkern]

Did you watch the video?

[@loganwillett2835]

This is 100% the comment of someone who didn’t watch the video, and if you did, it wasn’t in a charitable or honest way. Every content creator in the theist/atheist online circles spends the majority of their time making videos for the people that share the same worldview.

[@loganwillett2835]

I mean bro at the 3 and 1/2 minute mark he literally talks about a debate with an atheist he just had last week🤣 that’s how I know you didn’t watch the video