It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I trust professional philosophers about as much as I trust professional doctors. I trust doctors to operate on me in emergencies, but otherwise I throw away my medication 90% of the time.
Unless you concede that morality exists separate from the existence of God, morality cannot be used to prove God's existence because the existence of morality is contingent on the existence of God.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Plantinga shortened "maximal greatness" to the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence because he felt these were extremely easy to agree upon.
My friend, I know you can do better than this All I have to do is disagree and Plantinga's definition of maximal greatness is discredited because it is no longer extremely easy to agree on.
Consider the great kings in human history such as Alexander, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon. They undoubtedly had superior intelligence. They undoubtedly exercised near-absolute power over their domains. But were they morally good? I do not believe any historians would attribute benevolence as a quality of the great kings, yet we still recognize them as the greatest.
If benevolence is not a requirement for the great rulers of men, why should it be a requirement for the greatest possible being?
There is no requirement for an all powerful God to be morally perfect, unless we are discussing the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God. But we are not trying to prove the existence of a certain conception of God. We are trying to prove the existence of any God.
Unfortunately I cannot comprehend your symbolic logic, your logical reasoning and programming ability are far beyond that of mine. I only have a basic knowledge of logical symbolism.
Thank you for explaining your logic, it makes sense to me now. My objection is with premise 2: objective moral values exist. I do not think we can definitively make this claim. It is not that I don't believe it's possible. But I don't see enough evidence for this premise to conclusively believe it.
When I assert 'this is good' or 'that is evil', I do not mean that I experience desire or aversion, or that I have a feeling of liking or indignation. These subjective experiences may be present; but the judgment points not to a personal or subjective state of mind but to the presence of an objective value in the situation.
So naturally, in the case of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., I would say they were not objectively morally superior. They peacefully fought against perceived social injustices of the time to great effect. But does fighting social injustice make you morally superior? For example, Liberal Americans today are protesting in the name of social injustice... Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the unfairness of Trump getting elected, etc... Are they morally superior to those that served and died for our country in Afghanistan? (I am trying my best not to sound biased) It is ironic that you include Buddha... I would not consider myself an expert in Buddhism by any means, but if I remember correctly I believe he rejected the existence of objective moral values.
Sure, moral values do exist. But why can't they be relative moral values? I believe moral values are an emergent property based upon our quality of life. When we have a low quality of life, and our survival instinct kicks in, it often twists our moral values.
What is the purpose of moral values anyways? It seems moral values protect us by acting in a way that is pleasing to others. But what happens when acting in a way that's pleasing to others will lead to your death?