• *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
What do you make of "WLCs Moral Argument -Debunked"?
« on: July 18, 2019, 09:54:34 am »
YouTuber Rationality Rules created a video called "WLCs Moral Argument Debunked" (

P1 : If God does not exist there are no Objective moral values or duties.
P2 : Objective moral values exist.
C1 : Therefore God exists.

He raises the following objections :

2:00 Because God does not exist P1 is false and the argument is a non sequitor.

2:33 If you replace the word God with Cthulu you will realise how ridiculous this argument is.

2:49 I can interpret "Objective" to have different meanings therefore the use of the reference marker "Objective" in the syllogism commits the false equivocation fallacy.

3:40 If Craig is using the definition that Objective moral values are universal then it needn't refer to God there are other theories like Kants deontological ethics, the golden rule etc. (note these are normative!)

4:35 If Craig means a reference point that exists independently of human experience by "Objective" then he is wrong because in Utilitarianism (Harris) pleasure/pain is an objective reference point or consequence is.

6:00 - 6:55 ish - In these two quotes taken out of context Craig appears to contradict himself so he is wrong.

7:33 Equivocation Fallacy.

7:57 Argument from ignorance fallacy

8:22 Craig commits the God of the gaps fallacy.

8:31 Burden of proof fallacy. Craig shifts the burden of proof so he is wrong.

9:04 Craigs argument doesnt support monotheism.


What do you think of the video?

I think this was an incredibly dishonest and I don't even think the smarmy way he puts across these "logical fallacies" when it's not even an appropriate use most of the time - it's a completely dishonest engagement of Craigs argument. However I would like to know what other people think and whether it is even worth debunking terrible (yet worryingly popular) videos like these?


Tom Paine

  • **
  • 405 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: What do you make of "WLCs Moral Argument -Debunked"?
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2019, 09:56:31 pm »
I'm not sure about the whole video. I haven't watched it. From presentation it looks pretty scatter shot, so I would not be surprised if some of the arguments are misses. However, the point on equivocation does at least do the service pointing out that the term "objective" has both ontological and epistemic meanings.

In ontological terms there is no debating whether values are objective or subjective. They are obviously subjective. Values require evaluation and an evaluator (a mind) and are therefore ontologically subjective, i.e.. mind-dependent. This goes whether God exists and dictates the meaning of morality or not.

In epistemic terms, on naturalism, moral values are determined by social evolutionary imperative and not by individual opinion or even social fashion/convention.  That means that they are by definition epistemically objective, i.e., not a matter of personal opinion or social fashion.

It is a social evolutionary imperative that if a society of sentient social beings is to flourish and survive to pass on its values it must inculcate the value of reciprocity in its members. This is the value that societies label "morality" and so by epistemically objective definition it is morally right to abide by the principle of reciprocity (something like the golden rule) and morally wrong to violate it.

As such if the term "Objective" in P1 means epistemically, then it is false because there is a good naturalistic explanation for the existence of and epistemically objective core moral value.  If in P1 "objective" means, ontologically, it's nonsense because "ontologically objective values" is an incoherent concept. Either way the argument is doomed.