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
    The first premise of moral arguments for God's existence ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The first premise of moral arguments for God's existence is false

    Natural TheologyProblem of Evil
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mackie's error theory entails that moral discourse is systematically false, yet this cannot account for the phenomenological certainty of judgments like 'torturing innocents for fun is wrong'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Companions-in-guilt arguments show that if moral facts are eliminated, so are logical and mathematical facts, but eliminativism about logic is self-refuting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russ Shafer-Landau's non-naturalist realism establishes that moral facts can be sui generis and necessary without requiring divine grounding, severing the link the moral argument needs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joyce and Street's evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism equally undermine the reliability of the cognitive faculties theists invoke to justify belief in God.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Korsgaard's constructivism grounds categorical moral obligations in the reflective structure of rational agency without positing objective moral facts, offering a non-theistic alternative to moral nihilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Morality is subjective or expressive rather than consisting of objective facts
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moral skepticism or error theory denies that objective moral facts exist
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Natural TheologyProblem of Evil

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Companions-in-guilt arguments show that if moral facts are eliminated, so are lo...Joyce and Street's evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism equall...Korsgaard's constructivism grounds categorical moral obligations in the reflecti...Mackie's error theory entails that moral discourse is systematically false, yet ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moral skepticism or error theory denies that objective moral facts existMorality is subjective or expressive rather than consisting of objective factsRuss Shafer-Landau's non-naturalist realism establishes that moral facts can be ...

    Similar

    An argument for God's existence can be constructed from moral obligati...82%The first premise of the kalām argument (the Causal Principle) is true...82%The moral argument for God's existence is not obviously question-beggi...81%The first premise of the kalām cosmological argument is false.81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-arguments-god
    View source passageHide passage
    As we shall see, there are a variety of features of morality that can be appealed to in the first steps of the arguments, as well as a variety of ways in which God might be thought to provide an explanation of those features in the second steps. The use of the somewhat vague phrase “objective moral facts” is intended to allow for this variety in Premise 1. The similarly vague notion of God providing the best explanation of such facts allows for the variety of ways moral features may depend on Go
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit