Every Christian should master the moral argument to help bring others closer to Christ. But what is it and how would you explain it to someone else? In this video, theologian, apologist, and CrossExamined Apologetic Team (CAT) member Tim Stratton lays out several reasons why he thinks the moral argument is one of the most effective of all the arguments for the existence of God. Get ready to take some notes!
???? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????
?? To learn more about Tim Stratton go to: https://www.youtube.com/c/FreethinkingMinistries
?? Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD????????https://bit.ly/3wDITuG, Mp3????????https://bit.ly/3LqhX6b and Mp4 ????????https://bit.ly/36JNSzn
?? Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World: Mp3????????https://bit.ly/3yfPUm8 by Frank Turek
???? ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? (????????????-????????????????????????????????????????) ????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org/donate/
? PayPal: https://bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_PayPal
???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????
? Facebook: https://facebook.com/CrossExamined.org
? Twitter: https://twitter.com/Frank_Turek
? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drfrankturek/
? Pinterest: https://pin.it/JF9h0nA
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ?????
? Website: https://crossexamined.org
? Store: https://impactapologetics.com/
? Online Courses: https://www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????
? iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
? Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
? Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
? Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#MoralArgument #Apologetics
I am genuinely curious and hope someone can explain this to me:
Aren’t there other things that could be the cause of objective morality?
1. It could very well just be something genetic that was caused by evolution, like a common fear of spiders or repulse against incest: there were many deadly spiders, so people learned to stay away; incest causes genetic dysfunctions, making it harder to survive. This is a proven fact as far as I know. Not everyone has a fear of spiders? Not everyone has strong objective morality either.
2. As far as I know it’s been proven that our upbringing will shape us as a person and parent’s beliefs can easily be passed down. Objective morality could also be taught like this.
3. People generally want to live a comfortable life. What’s comfortable? If people think highly of you. If you do good deeds, people will. If people think badly of you, people will generally be more anxious, etc. due to pressure that comes with the importance of social life and reputation, which is not comfortable.
4. It’s in human nature to want to have a purpose. Many people want to gain power, achieve something great, be famous. What for? If we’re not paying attention to material things like money, I’d say it’s that they want to be remembered. And when you do good deeds, help people, etc., people will remember you. If one isn’t remembered, one is nothing. If one is, one has fulfilled their purpose.
@Ozzyman200 Says:
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
@lauriercollard1591 Says:
i want to use this argument but i dont know how i could explain more easily the fact that if there no god, there no objective moral values? could someone write me a explanation
@EndTimesHarvest Says:
Without God, morality collapses into subjectivity and mere opinion and is ultimately not grounded in anything objective. Only an unchanging, infinite mind that knows all can be the basis of objective morality.
@trumpbellend6717 Says:
It is rare to find so much BS in one video, ignorance, hypocrisy, disingenuous, irrational, this guy has it all 🤣😅🤣😍😍
@ez.7106 Says:
Would help if you worded things more simply so it's easier to understand, so I can show it to a younger crowd like my youth students.
@justme7415 Says:
There are indeed ways to generate objective morals from iterative means without invoking a god. One could argue that once a certain intelligence threshold is gained by a species, lets say the threshold is such that complex social phenomena emerges (including language), then that species must make iterations of norms to--over time--converge on norms that are necessary for the survival of the species. These norms are inherent to the system at different levels of complexity. And so, as the group grows in numbers, so to does the working out of these new boundaries for co-habitation. Thus a moral could be seen as a convergence of behavioral patterns that optimize/promote the stability and growth of the "colony".
@aarongutierrez5959 Says:
Hello. I am a big fan of your program Dr Turek. I have been watching your debates, interactions and learned a lot of them esp on how to present myself if ever I get to engage to atheists and talk about my faith without even talking about the Bible. i live in Australia and as a secular country, a lot of people dont believe in God and the love to mock. I thought maybe one day you will be able to come to Australia and bring your show here to see how the locals would react in this kind of interaction or discussion. Or is it like all atheists are same the way they view life? Example topic. Morality. People have morals and show their sympathy and compassionate to others however, the atheists are unable to verify the source of it and they just respond to a form of mockery. It is just God bless you and your work!
@monkkeygawd Says:
Here's one of the lovely stories of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness... er... uh....
Acts 5:1-10 GW
A man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold some property. They agreed to hold back some of the money ⌞they had pledged⌟ and turned only part of it over to the apostles. Peter asked, “Ananias, why did you let Satan fill you with the idea that you could deceive the Holy Spirit? You’ve held back some of the money you received for the land. While you had the land, it was your own. After it was sold, you could have done as you pleased with the money. So how could you do a thing like this? You didn’t lie to people but to God!” When Ananias heard Peter say this, he dropped dead. Everyone who heard about his death was terrified. Some young men got up, wrapped his body in a sheet, carried him outside, and buried him. About three hours later Ananias’ wife arrived. She didn’t know what had happened. So Peter asked her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for that price?” She answered, “Yes, that was the price.” Then Peter said to her, “How could you and your husband agree to test the Lord’s Spirit? Those who buried your husband are standing at the door, and they will carry you outside for burial.” Immediately, she dropped dead in front of Peter. When the young men came back, they found Sapphira dead. So they carried her outside and buried her next to her husband.
@BabbleCacophony Says:
You can't get an 'ought' unless there is a goal. A goal is subjective regardless of a God creating objective morality. God can create us with a goal in mind but that only gives himself an 'ought.' We can only have 'oughts' based on our own goals. For example, if our goal is to go to heaven, then we ought to follow God's commandments. I don't know how you can even have a logically possible objective 'ought.' The idea comes across incoherent to me.
@49perfectss Says:
This is the appeal to consequence fallacy... Do people find this convincing? It's a really bad argument...
@nicholasemond1388 Says:
Premise 2 can be rejected and the conclusion does not follow from premise 2 either.
@GavnGarcia Says:
Jesus is king
@austindavid7155 Says:
People can create their own objective morality though. Like contractarianism, which is like a social contract that everyone agrees to obey.
Those that disagree and disobey are punished. So if the Nazis all agree that throwing Jews in an oven is a good thing, than that would be the objective morality for that people group.
Now we can discuss the merits of a particular social contact downstream, but first you admit that it is possible to have objective morality independent of God.
@2tonetony319 Says:
This is great! As long as you don’t want to make any sense at all.
@michaelrunk5930 Says:
Okay gone tell you why he wrong. Part of the problem is he doesn't understand what objective means. So here the definition.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
So the question is are humans capable of looking at something objectively; yes we do it all the time. Are we perfect no but we are capable of being objective.
Now this does not disprove God as being behind objective morality. It just it could come from God or from man.
Before I continue let me say one thing. We should always strive to look for what makes more rational sense before leapinh to supernatural forces such as God.
Now he talks about purpose. He says if there is no God the we are an accident and their for humans have no real purpose. Thus objective morality doesn't matter. Problem is he wrong.
As human beings we are driven together for two reasons. First is for companionship. The second is for survivability. Companionship gives our lives purpose on an individual level. It keeps us from being lonely and allows us to stimulate are intellectual minds. We rely on one another to in sure our survivability. We pool our resources together to make life easier and thus raising our survivability.
Yet as noble as human beings are we can also be selfish, greedy and vengeful. If things like murder, rape, stealing are allowed to run rampant then that society would die or would at very least that society will jot thrive or flourish on any aspect.
Ambassador Spock once said "The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few; or the one."
This is quote is actually a good basis for objective morality. Anything that hurts or harms the whole is objectively wrong.
Murder, rape, stealing just to name a few if allowed to run rampant will hurt a society. Thus as humans we see these things as objectively wrong. Now this is further enforced on a subjective Level.
When we see some one who been victimized we feel empathy for the victim and their families. We don't have to experience something to relate to how we might feel in the victim or victims families shoes. This helps us to further conclude what we consider objectively wrong.
All though we have objective morality we still have subjective morality as well. Look at incest. It is objectively wrong but there are those who don't think it's wrong. At the end of the day doesn't matter what they think. Only matters what we as a society on a large think. If some one thinks incest is morally right that's there right to think so. They have to choices fall in with the whole and not commit incest or have it and face consequences if caught.
Now if you think about what I said and really look at human beings I full filled all the standards for morality with out the need for a creator. So you have to ask your self. What makes more sense. What I just explained or some white beard man sitting on cloud shaking his finger at us.
In my view he is wrong and is short sighted and doesn't really understand things nearly as much as he thinks he does. Just like Frank Turek.
@jesuslovesyou4634 Says:
This is so great!!!
@dickersoncharlie4961 Says:
It does not matter how strong the moral argument is, if someone does not want to believe it they will never accept it.
@NikolaHundz Says:
I can see how this argument may be strong if one disregards how moral theories tend to be categorized, and the various ways in which a moral value or duty can be said to be “objective.”
As it stands, there’s really no reason for accepting the first premise, as there are many robust moral theories in metaethics and normative ethics that do not require a God, propose morals to be objective in some meaningful sense, and do not collapse into arbitrariness like vulgar relativism.
To defend the first premise one really needs something other than putting forth ignorant stereotyping of naturalists (refuting naturalism doesn’t accomplish anything for the first premise). Instead one would need to present some cogent and defensible reason why any and all moral theories that are consistent with non-theism and propose some objectivity to morality, are all likely false.
@sick_ibg712 Says:
God violates "objective morality" all the time in the Bible and even today. Why would an all powerful and all knowing and all loving God create natural disasters, droughts/famine, birth defects, diseases etc. On top of that he doesn't even communicate with his creation but we better be obedient so we can be worthy of his love.
@fesheeladenboar4590 Says:
That doesn't seem right
@docsspellingcontest592 Says:
And if Hitler repented and accepted Jesus in his heart before he died, what he did wasn’t REALLY wrong because he will be in heaven with all the other Christians. God does what with those sins? Murder isn’t wrong wrong, actually it’s ok as long as you say you’re sorry. So basically Christians have a nice get of jail free card. What was the difference between objective and subjective moral values again?
@AsixA6 Says:
Just a heads up. "That doesn't seem right", is not an argument. lol
@drvoxel6071 Says:
The concept of a god just doesn't seem right...
@michaeldeaton Says:
"If man wasn't created with a specific purpose that doesn't seem right"
Well buddy, first of all, human intuition is trash and isn't reliable at all in seeking for true facts about the phenomena we experience in life.
But way more importantly, this is all the evidence we ever need that your "God" is nothing more than you, gazing deeply into your own navel, in unison with your reactionary fear to anything new, different, or changing.
Thanks for playing. Your God is as false as your "intuition" is unreliable, which is to say wholly and completely.
@karlesmcquade2863 Says:
What argument would Dr. Stratton use to prove the existence of his own father?
@pazuzil Says:
This is the type of outdated medieval thinking you get when you base your worldview on religious dogma. Most professional philosophers don't see any conflict between moral realism and atheism. The moral argument essentially depends on our intuition that objective morals exist, which means the conclusion of the moral argument (god exists) depends on our intuition. What kind of argument is that IoI?
@recoveringknowitall1534 Says:
In all that bluster, you never supported premise 2, nor supported it's origin in a Supernatural God rather than just natural progression. All you did was attack a straw man version of naturalism. Failed at that too by the way. I'm a Christian. Stop trying to "prove" God exists and just proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. Please re-read 1 Corinthians chapter one.
@vondas1480 Says:
Theists having negative IQ as usual.
@123gamer153 Says:
so i'm replying for fun and a bit curious about a few things, your second premises, can you give us some examples of objective morals values and duties? and what you would do to disprove this premise? example "thou shalt not steal", well what about theft in the case of feeding someone that's looking after their mom? or are you just going to say "free will" and be done with it? and also demonstrate your god exists or did anything. at 1:15 you begun talking about naturalism and finishing at the 3:00, you guys need to stop doing this, STOP talking about another persons views or opinions just to prop yours up. you also mentioned "dust in the wind" by a naturalistic view? you have read how we were made from the biblical point of view, right? Adam - "A golem is an animated anthropomorphic being in Jewish folklore which is entirely created from inanimate matter (usually clay or mud)."... you mentioned Hitler, there is no objective standard for why Hitler was wrong, he HAD follows, he HAD favorable views to begin with. he had a lot of political power and support towards his views, and even nowadays people there's still some people that liked what he did. you then finished with rape, murder and stuff? meanwhile we have people that think this stuff is okay? if your objective morals do exists, we wouldn't have people that would be doing this stuff. and thinking it's okay.
@sanjeevgig8918 Says:
Argumentation by but-that-doesnt-seem-right ??!!
This table is solid but "science" tells us that all the atoms are filled with space - that doesnt seem right !
The Sun moves from one side to the other - but "science" tells us that the earth revolves around the sun - that doesnt seem right !
LOL
@recoveringknowitall1534 Says:
Wow. You have a doctorate? In What? Because your argument is weak sauce.
@theoskeptomai2535 Says:
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@CrossExamined Says:
Download FREE Cheat Sheet "The 4-Point Case for Christianity” 👉🏻📱 https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
@alexf8309 Says:
I get the feeling he's read some cs lewis... maybe a mere Christianity doodle... just a hunch
@goor1322 Says:
A related topic to morality and God's existence.
Imagine a genuine $5 bill from the bank in your right hand. Describing that bill you might say it's good currency. You may even say that it is the standard to measure all other $5 bills you come across in your dealings.
Now in your left hand imagine a counterfeit $5 bill. How would you describe that? You could say it's bad currency. In fact you might even call it a source of evil.
Here's the thing we all need to understand. Evil is not a thing, it is the corruption of a thing. Just as the counterfeit is a corruption of the genuine $5 bill so too is evil a corruption of good. Lies are a corruption of truth, rust is considered to be a corruption to metal etc.
And to prove that evil is not a thing of itself, going back to my illustration of the $5 bill and the counterfeit. Remove the genuine $5 bill from existence. Can the counterfeit still exist without the genuine? No. Because there's nothing to corrupt. Now switch it up. Remove the counterfeit $5 bill instead. Can the genuine $5 bill exist without the counterfeit? Yes! Yes it can. Any evil in the world cannot disprove God, because evil is a corruption of something good. It cannot stand on its own. That's why evil presupposes Good and Good presupposes God. There would be no good unless there was a God. Because what we mean by good is God's nature.
@Trapper7715 Says:
Love this but, try using all the big words in a daily conversation with the common nonbeliever, this is hard for even me, a Christian, to understand.
@philb4462 Says:
There is no such thing as objective morality. Anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand what the difference is between subjective and objective. Subjective morality is nothing to be afraid of.
@catREV1910 Says:
We ought to love The Lord thy God with all thy hear, soul & mind. 💜💜💜
@danielpenn1734 Says:
I love the Lord God almighty. Hes my rock
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 Says:
Sorry but this is just a case of you wanting to feel special. That is not proof of anything.
@Steven-ki9sk Says:
‘If mankind is just matter there are no oughts’
Nonsense. We see oughts throughout the natural world. If a spider wants to catch prey effectively, it ought to build a web in a certain way. If a tiger wants to succeed at hunting, it ought to behave in a certain way. If a bird wants to attract a mate, then he ought to behave in certain ways. Why is it such a stretch to think if humans want to survive and thrive, that they ought to behave in certain ways?
@Steven-ki9sk Says:
Your moral argument isn’t very convincing.
1) how do you know objective morals exist? Surely anything god commands, can’t be objectively evil. So killing kids, owning others as permanent property, punishing kids for their relatives sins or treating people different because of their race/ethnicity can’t be objectively evil? And just because most people on earth agree with something, that doesn’t mean it’s objectively good, since there was a time in history when most people didn’t see anything wrong with racism
2) What is your justification for claiming that if god doesn’t exist, objective morals can’t exist? Most professional philosophers are both moral realists and atheists so they disagree with you. Why can’t the certain behaviour exist because it is the most advantageous for the survival of our species?
@iluvtacos1231 Says:
Here's another aside:
Cumulative arguments for the existence of god suck, because 6 bad arguments is no different than 1 bad argument. You still need proof.
I played professionally in the NBA. Want proof?
I've held a basketball.
Anyone who hasn't held a basketball hasn't played in the NBA.
Therefore, I've played in the NBA.
Oh, you still don't believe me?
Well, I've been on a basketball court.
People who haven't been on a basketball court haven't played in the NBA.
Therefore, I've played in the NBA.
You want evidence?
Well, I've shot hoops before and made a few three pointers.
People who haven't shot hoops before and made a few threes haven't played in the NBA.
Therefore, I've played in the NBA.
That's still not good enough?
Well, I've got an NBA jersey in my closet with my name on it.
People who haven't played in the NBA don't have jerseys with their names on them in their closets.
Therefore, I've played in the NBA.
All of these are bad arguments. What would ACTUALLY prove i played in the NBA?
Pictures of me on the court in full uniform, shooting shots in the paint with Steph Curry trying to block my shot. It would be video of me playing, rosters with my name on it, pay stubs saying "From the Knicks to iluvtacos1231", actual evidence.
Some evidence would be more valid than other evidence. For instance, my name being on a roster list on Wikipedia isn't as good as my name being on an official roster because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, one on one pictures can be faked but a whole video of me in a game would be harder to fake, etc.
Until such time as you can prove with good evidence, not arguments, that God exists, stop arguing for it.
@frankcardano4142 Says:
What a waste of gum chomping.
If the world is the way it is then the made up god of the bible must exist.
Congratulations.
@bigdavexx1 Says:
Objective is not a synonym for really.
@The-Wretched-Spawn Says:
The moral of the story:
God exists.
@Birdlab Says:
"Faith" is generally defined as a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. If that is true, why do apologetics feel the need to apply reason, science, and evidence to defend their faith?
@williamrice3052 Says:
Your conclusion is incontrovertible, if not by moral argument alone but the preponderance of so many evidences proving non-existence of God a statistical impossibility. Therefore morals do flow from God's love, and God is love, and God loved us so much that He gave His only Son so that anyone Believing in Him should not perish but have eternal life. Because anyone born of God, thru Faith in Jesus Christ, refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed (Holy Spirit) abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
LATEST COMMENTS