No, the ontological question is insurmountable. Even on theism moral values would be ontologically subjective. You are simply substituting a supernatural subject as the evaluator in place of human evaluators, though I would argue that the ultimate evaluator is not human beings themselves but the process of social evolution.Of course an unconscious process cannot evaluate anything in the sense that conscious agent can, but it can cause human beings to have the inclination to make the necessary evaluation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NAzPLUFkuA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0218GkAGbnU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5YdtMxls-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
Christian worldview has foundation (premises, theology, hermeneutics) to answer the ontological question. I'll not insist anymore.
Even on theism moral values would be ontologically subjective.
Wrong. The Ultimate authority of God comes from His eternal authority. His nature is the grounding for what its good.
biblehub.com/luke/18-19.htm
biblehub.com/mark/10-18.htm
That is because our socialization is learned rather than hard-wired. That is no way runs counter to my thesis, unless you don't quite understand my thesis.
I pointed a counter example. Re think your premises.
No, humans are really social beings, but thy are sentient social beings, whereas ants are not. You might notice that I often preface "social being" with the word "sentient", that is because it is a key concept in understanding my thesis.
Humans are based on whatever economically advantageous. Review your premises.
Ant's are really social, Ant's support natural selection through cooperation. And Ant's are continuing to be Ants anyway.
Christians tend to overcome and try to be equal Jesus Christ and follow His teachings to love one another.
A human being requires socialization, a post natal programming of our brains to value reciprocity. It's why even in high school the walls are covered with posters which in big letters spell out words like RESPECT and COOPERATION.
Humans social behavior is based on economic establishment.
Most respect and cooperation is based on economics which do not explain the origin of love and consciousness in human beings.
I disagree, the moral standard of reciprocity is determined for us by social evolutionary imperative. You will not find that humanist social values differ that much from theistic ones. It's just that we deny that there is some supernatural origin for these values.
Explain the origin of consciousness.
Explain the origin of love in human beings.
Love has no explanation outside God's nature, Who expressed Love first creating a Universe where humans would exist and giving them the responsibility to lovely respond back to their Creator.
1) Are qualities like 'compassion', 'love', 'justice' good because they are found in God's nature, or good independently of God?
2) To claim they are good independently of God is to propose Platonism.
3) Platonism fails.
4) Therefore, they are Good because they are found in God's nature.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-plausibility-of-grounding-moral-values-in-god#ixzz4rHEP3DVi.
Again, 'compassion', 'love', 'justice' is not explained by evolution and is not explained by the way humans normally agree with each other in a society, and are able to live with each other. Most are based on economics and how money flows.
True love exists between humans.
The concept of justice exists between humans.
The concept of compassion exists between humans.
(Theologically speaking) Therefore God exists because His nature is Love, Goodness, and MOST important Justice.
In a naturalistic world view justice is unjustifiable. Its just one human acting weirdly toward another. Each is another good reason for me to not be a atheist. Because I know very well the concept of Justice.
And ultimate justice is just found in God's nature. In Jesus Christ nature.
Once. Jesus Christ sacrificed himself for us, on the cross. So if we believe and hold on to that belief we will be saved because the of this ultimate act of compassion. Repent from our sins (fact we are sinners) is another way to understand Christ's sacrifice. Humbleness is another way to understand God's ultimate reality, and God's ultimate sacrifice for human beings.
IMO this last statement is loaded with unwarranted theistic assumptions. There is no reason why a naturalist has to consider human beings morally incorrigible.
Humans are sinners.
God (Creator) is not a sinner therefore He can be a OMS for humans.
God is eternal, personal, all knowing, omniscient, all powerful, His nature is good, love, truth, way: He can be a objective standard.
If human are just the byproduct of cause and necessity you are not responsible towards anything.
Since you are.
God exists.
WLC is conflating ontological and epistemic objectivity here.
I think he knows the distinction pretty well.
"Moral ontology has to do with the objective reality of moral values and duties. Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know moral values and duties. The moral argument is wholly about moral ontology; it says nothing about how we come to know moral values and duties. Thus, the argument is completely neutral with respect to the relative clarity or obscurity of the moral realm. It would be wholly consistent with the argument to maintain, for example, that it is only through an inner divine illumination that we come to know moral values and duties and that those who suppress God’s illuminating their minds find themselves groping in moral darkness." Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-can-people-be-so-morally-obtuse#ixzz4rHIRAl18
Moral Theory -----> Normative Ethics -------> Moral ontology
-------> Moral epistemology
-------> Moral linguistics
-------> Definition of Morality
-----> Meta-ethics ------> Particular Claims
------> General Systems
Paul, the apostle, says, “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2.14-16). On Paul’s view you don’t have to be aware of the source of your moral duties in order to know your moral duties.
Questions:
Could you please show a list of premises, short and precise, to defend positively your position?
Like all the arguments Alvin Plantinga presents.
Ontological argument:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Just the list of premises, defending positively. Please.List of premises showing on a naturalistic worldview, evolution, what have your:
Showing the concept of Justice, Meaning of Life, Love, Compassion exists.
In the animal kingdom there isn't such thing as: Meaning of Life, Love, Compassion, or even Justice.
Again, please. Just the premises. Thanks.
--
Religion: "Strict observance of law and conscience. Religious means originally observant, conscientious, strict" (The Etymology of Religion.-By SARAH F. HOYT, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., https://www.jstor.org/stable/3087765).