Another Criticism of Dr. William Lane Craig

I just couldn't resist another poke at Dr. Craig today.  I think he just might become my muse, as he too is a philosopher--his philosophies are just somewhat different than my own.  He  attempts to use logic effectively in some of his arguments, but unfortunately for him, he fails miserably.  I am going to critique one of his favorite arguments for the existence of "objective morality that comes from god".  This is also an excerpt from a book which I am currently writing:

"Christians say and believe there are absolute laws which come from their god, when, according to their own dogma, there are no laws at all. Jesus, they also say, supposedly died to absolve them from following the 613 laws that Yahweh set out for them, which is a clear contradiction to having "absolute laws." (Remember, Yahweh did not separate his laws and commandments into categories--this was done by men-- and the ten commandments are included in all of his laws.) It is blatantly obvious therefore, that if Yahweh existed, he gave humanity absolute moral rules to follow which Christians say they follow, but in reality, they only pay lip service to a few of them. This shows us that for Christians too, their moral rules are relative, and Paul made this clear when he said in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial."  According to Paul, everything is permissible when one believes there are no longer any laws to follow--it just might not be good for you.

This, however, does not stop the apologists such as Dr. Williams Lane Craig from arguing against this fact, which he attempts to do in his book, "A Debate Between A Christian and an Atheist." In his book, Dr. Craig argues that morality and ethical behavior is impossible for humans to achieve without a god, and absolute morals could not exist without Yahweh. He presents the following argument to show why he believes this to be true:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists. (p. 19)

He assumes that objective morals are conditional to a god existing, but I will show that objective morals are not dependent upon the existence of any god, let alone the Christian god. Craig's argument is a valid argument, but unsound, as without a god, we are quite capable in positing "objective moral values" through various Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is one of many Normative Ethical Theories, or NET'S, which are devices for producing specific moral judgements. The NET of Utilitarianism posits that:

"If any action increases the overall good, then it is a right action.

For instance, consider the following Direct Moral Rules (DMR's) posited by the Christian god, such as:

1. Do not lie.

2. Do not harm others.

In the examples below, these two DMR's come into conflict with each other:

In the case of lying for example, if I were in a situation where I was told that a roomful of people would be killed if my name was Susan, I would break the DMR which states "Do not lie" and lie about my name in order to save peoples' lives. To lie to the person who is about to kill the people if I say my name is Susan would be wrong, but to prevent harm coming to the others, lying would be considered to be right. According to Utilitarianism, when two DMR's come into conflict we apply the principle of utility directly to the situation at hand, and come up with what is most likely the correct judgment, which in this case would be it is right to lie in order to save many people from harm."

(All material protected by copyright) 

This is the video I commented on, on Youtube.  Logic is as frightening to Christians as a crucifix is to Dracula...and I was banned from that channel.  Lol.  The argument however, survives.  See below.

A Response and Argument Against Dr. William Lane Craig's Argument that the Christian god is Morally Perfect and Worthy of the Attitude of Worship

Recently I was on Youtube, listening to one of Dr. Craig's Videos, which prompted me to construct this logical argument against what was said.  He said that a morally perfect god is one worthy of worship, and the ancient gods of the Greeks and other peoples were morally flawed, and therefore not worthy of worship.  

He is very wrong about the Christian god, as the Christian god Yahweh has almost identical attributes to the gods of the Greeks and Romans. 

"...for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land"  Deuteronomy 6:15

Being angry and jealous and threatening to destroy people is not virtuous.

P1 If Yahweh (the christian God) is worthy of the attitude of worship, then Yahweh would meet the conditions of the greatest conceivable being. (Craig set those conditions, and being morally perfect is one of those conditions.)

P2 If Yahweh is the greatest conceivable being, then Yahweh would have to be morally perfect.

P3 If Yahweh is morally perfect, then he would be perfectly virtuous.

P4 If Yahweh is perfectly virtuous, then he would have no vices.

P5 Yahweh has vices. (angry, jealous, vengeful, narcissistic, murderous, sadistic)

P6 Yahweh does not not have vices. (By the rule of double negation)

P7 Yahweh is not perfectly virtuous.

P8 Yahweh is not morally perfect.

P9 Yahweh is not the greatest conceivable being.

C. Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship.

So Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship, for the same reason, as Craig points out, that all the other little 'g' gods are not worthy of worship.

Christians such as Dr. Craig need to construct better arguments than merely asserting the Christian god is "the greatest conceivable being" as there is too much "evidence" in the bible which shows that the Christian god Yahweh is nothing short of a narcissisitic, sadistic, masochistic, angry, jealous, vengeful god.--and NOT worthy of worship. 

I got a resonse to my argument from the guy who owned the channel, and then he immediately blocked me. He said:


"P5 just begged the question, genius. Honestly, throw the Dan Barker stuff in the trash."

Here is the reply I would have posted, if he had let me, but since he didn't, my husband posted it instead:


P5 does not beg the question-It is supported by biblical passages such as the one below:

"..for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land." Deuteronomy 6:15

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”Hosea 13:16 (MURDER OF UNBORN)

After this, my husband was blocked.  These types of Christians obviously are unwilling to argue for their beliefs, but maintain them by blocking out anything that contradicts them.  It matters not, it is easy to create new accounts and keep posting, which is what I did below:

According to Craig, for any being to be worthy for the attitude of worship they must meet the criteria of the greatest conceivable being, and one of those conditions is being morally perfect.  According to the bible,Yahweh was angry and jealous, which are vices, and if vices do not count against Yahweh, then they do not count against any other being. Therefore, Zeus, or any other of the Gods would be worthy of the attitude of worship too. Yahweh must meet the same conditions, and he does not.  Therefore, Yahweh is not worthy of the attitude of worship.

You cannot waive the conditions for Yahweh that Craig set out for being worthy of the attitude of worship, ie. for being a god.  Otherwise, you are begging the question for Yahweh being a God in the first place.  Yahweh must meet the same standards that Craig set out for being worthy of the attitude of worship. So either Craig is wrong, or the bible is wrong about Yahweh being jealous and angry and therefore having vices.  Just because you prefer Yahweh does not count.