Prager University has a new video out that you may find interesting. Boston College’s Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy, makes the argument that if Good and Evil exists, God exists.
So what do you think?
Wandering Views
4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site
Wandering Views 
That’s a good presentation, and it’s irrefutable.
LikeLike
So where has Random been, anyway?
LikeLike
Donna,
Shhhhhhh!
🙂
I must admit I would be interested to hear his take on this.
LikeLike
Moral Law=Divine Law. C.S. Lewis refers in The Abolition of Man to The Tao and with a convincing Appendix shows how all civilizations are in basic agreement with what we term The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.
One may attempt to refute this as Prof. Kreeft remarks, though doing so invloves involves some form of nihilism.
LikeLike
As Sails notes, CS Lewis advocates something similar. The argument isn’t new and neither are the rebuttals.
At first glance I thought his argument for the existence of morality was ontological ie by definition and thus not very sound. And he also defines morality so as to make his argument against other explanations stronger. He defines morality as absolute and unchanging a position one does not have to take and for which there is no evidence.
In terms of his own rebuttals of alternate explanations, I think he minimized the evolutionary naturalism position. Its far more complex than the 30 second sound bite he gave it.
Finally, even if we were to grant him his definition and his claims to a supernatural body which delivers moral truth, this isn’t an argument for the Christians god and Christian claims of moral truths. His argument could also be used to justify Islam or even polytheistic Hinduism.
LikeLike
No, hwesseli, he doesn’t redefine morality to fit his argument; he says that morality is meaningless–it really isn’t morality at all–if it’s not absolute and unchanging. Otherwise, it’s subject to the weaknesses he discusses. How is that not so? That was the part where he referred to what “ought” to be.
Regarding the evolution argument, what does he not address in essence? What complexity of evolution does he not rebut *in essence*?
He didn’t claim to be arguing for the Christian God; not in that piece.
LikeLike
That’s precisely the point, he says its meaningless if its not absolute. Defining it this way allows him to disregard the evolutionary argument which argues morality evolves through natural selection and thus not necessarily absolute. In his view, it must have an “ought” but why
LikeLike
It *is* meaningless if it’s not absolute. That was addressed variously throughout the clip. One example: if “morality” changes over time, then slavery, torture, murder, etc., could one day be fine. And even then, “fine” would merely be a preference of the same essence as one’s choice of ice cream. There’s no getting around this. If it’s not absolute, it’s meaningless. “Ought” is part and parcel of morality, unless one argues there IS no “ought,” in which case, one is no longer able to condemn the holocaust on moral grounds.
LikeLike