Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A successful moral argument for God's existence requires both defending the objectivity of morality and demonstrating that theism best explains that objectivity.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral objectivity can be established on purely naturalist grounds (e.g., Railton's reductive naturalism, Parfit's non-naturalism) without invoking theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If secular accounts adequately ground moral objectivity, the theistic explanation becomes explanatorily idle, violating Ockham's Razor.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A successful moral argument therefore requires not merely pointing out weaknesses in rivals, but showing theism adds irreducible explanatory power—a burden rarely met.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Euthyphro dilemma, formalized by Plato and revived by Mackie, shows divine command theory renders morality either arbitrary or independent of God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If moral facts are independent of God's will, theism explains nothing about their objectivity that a secular Platonism does not already explain more parsimoniously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The two-part requirement collapses because demonstrating moral objectivity actively undermines the necessity of the theistic explanatory step.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The proponent of a moral argument must defend the reality and objectivity of the moral feature being appealed to.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The proponent must also defend the claim that this moral feature is best explained by God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Demonstrating the strength of a theistic explanation may require pointing out weaknesses in rival secular explanations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.