Stephen Law´s Evil God Spurs New Look at Craig´s "Objective Morality"

punnet2 Highlighted reply punnet2 4 hours ago (edited) @Green Peacemst Craig didn't simply argue for theism in some broad sense, but specifically for a "good" god. To refute Craig's moral argument is sufficient to refute the specific god he is arguing for. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 16 minutes ago (edited) ​ @punnet2 Craig made a multi-pointed argument, and for objective morality, which he presented as "good," implicitly reflecting a characteristically Christian argument. Law´s argument jumps into a whole soup mix with presumptions, presupposing that suffering equates with evil, and that lots of good exists, etc. What, who, where? It´s stimulating, but second-rate, since it´s founded on flimsy equivalence of scholastic disembodied metaphor and without sufficient empirical foundations, all in presuppositionalism, which is unexamined and fallacious, and he tries to feign its legitimacy following up with one fallacy after another, ad hom, projection, ad hoc, ad populum are some that I recognize pretty quickly. Moreover, the question of debate was if God exists, not even the exact kind of God Craig is arguing for. You´re a little unclear of the need to balance the forest and the trees, or the tree for all its parts, roots, trunk, branches, and leaves (and evolution of terrestrial autotrophs, no less, back to the Cause of the Universe, etc lol). In any event, the moral argument is ultimately intertwined with underlying premises that Craig can pull out of his utility belt. Law, and you all, are doing Platonic shadow boxing. I was just getting at the appropriate manner of examining the objective moral argument. Incest (usually child sexual abuse) taboos and laws against child abuse,don´t mean that violators don´t still perpetrate the act, or try to. In a related way, but with a twist, certain religious laws (Islamic Sharia Law) legislate the death penalty for rape victims, not the rape perpetrators. Objective morality needs to distinguish between the natural reality of cultural relativism and the Judeo-Christian standard that now juxtaposes human rights with national sovereignty and religious freedom. The achievement of UN human rights is a Christian-derived pluralistic achievement that can be analyzed. All people would prefer to have all their babies grow up in an ideal world without "either-or" and other competing demands that have caused infanticide. Human rights establishes that kind of general goal derived from Christian foundations, and maternal anthropology by the likes of John Bowlby. Meanwhile, UN national sovereignty allows cultural relativism, and variations on human rights accord law enforcement includes embargoes, maybe boycotts, etc. That accounts for the Islamic nations that have refused to sign the UN UD of human rights conventions. The US itself has refused to sign one, demonstrating its own compromising issues related to national sovereignty. Where there is choice or not within a context of national sovereignty then also occurs. In some Islamic nations, democracy activists have been jailed or worse. In the EU, one or more countries has issued Intl Ct of Justice warrants for the arrest of American officials in the GW Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. The EU is preparing to charge carbon fees on imports from places like the US. Moral objectivity can be pursued despite differing views among individuals and groups, based on Christian-derived natural law legal and scientific principles now globalized in the Christian University-based principles of the pluralistic UN community of nations. It´s a little complex if someone is not adequately literate in social studies disciplines.