John Glenn L.

Lambayon BSA-4A 11:00A-12:30P TTH PHILO 106

The Moral Argument
The argument is probably structured and patterned after the Judeo-Christian
God. (Exhibit A: Love your neighbour). However, it is rather strange that the video
debunks the atheists godless universe, one that is bereft of morality, by saying
without a God, the universes gold standard of right and wrong becomes arbitrary,
which renders all other judgment as equally valid. Further adding that in that
godless universe there cannot be an objective morality; only subjective morality will
subsist. What I found outlandish from these claims is that the Judeo-Christian God is
not the god of all (albeit biblically, he is). If we reduce it very simply, he is a God in a
religion practiced by the majority of the population, but not the entirety. Would it
not make Gods goodness subjective as well? Do the heterogeneous faiths not affirm
the reality of subjectivity? I am aware there was a disclaimer in the beginning of the
short clip, but is it not unfair that God should be of the Judeo-Christian? Is it not
unfair that our beliefs now be the gold standards? Since the worlds faiths are
equally footed, why is Shiva not the reason for good and evil? Or Allah?

I am still not satisfied with the explanation. I still see the if not, then who?
rhetoric underlying the premises of the argument. Additionally, I am not satisfied
with the explanation that objective morals have to come from God. The claim that
morals come from God is completely unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, if morality is objective then all of our species would have the
same values, but apparently, it is clear that we do not 1. I struggle to find the exact
of meaning of objective morals. Does it refer to morality that is unconditional?
However, I find mankinds morality is always subject to the question of
circumstances. Would it not make the second premise wrong?

Additionally, are the objective morals referred to in the first and second
premises really refer to the same thing? I still could not shake the fact that here lies
Euthyphros Dilemma (I may have not listened properly). Is what is commanded by
God good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God? What
then do we mean by good? Yes, we have an external reference and now we can say
with finality what is good. But then, doesnt it make good something completely

1 Is Morality Objective? Issue 115, Philosophy Now

dependent upon a being we do not know (or at least, not sure of) whether he is
entirely good or not. I confess guilty to whatever fallacious statement I had made,
but do we worship God because he is good or because he is powerful?

John Glenn L. Lambayon BSA-4A 11:00A-12:30P TTH PHILO 106

Evil, Pain and Suffering
The video discusses how God is still all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving
despite the presence of evil that undeniably blankets reality. This is excused
because of the fact that the creator had created men and women who are capable
of being both morally good and evil. This is so because good will have no value in a
universe completely filled with good beings. They are not free if they are made to
be good. Therefore, it is more meaningful to have beings capable of being evil so
that we can properly have goodness.

Needless to say, Plantingas defence refers to free will. With the video not
qualifying anything, I assume that this refers to complete free will. One of the
arguments I have watched2 is that if the creator is indeed all-knowing, then the
idea of him creating beings with free will directly contradicts what he is all-
knowing. To be all-knowing means knowing what possible choices there are, what
there could be and what choices will have to be made in the known universe.
However, the creator who should be all-knowing created beings who should still
choose for their future, i.e. with free will, i.e. those who still make decisions and with
unpredictable tendencies. Ergo, the creator cannot be all-knowing; in stark contrast
with what the video was purporting. Furthermore, if the creator does know what we
will possibly choose in the future but allows for our decisions to happen when we
make them, not to mention the impact of an all-knowing being on the free will
argument, means that he cannot be all-loving. Once more, if he is both all-knowing
and all-loving, then unquestionably and irrefutably he cannot be all-powerful.

Platingas argument for free will does not really justify anything. As I have
pointed out, being all-knowing destroys the free will argument. However, if God is
that, then precisely we cannot be free, and more importantly he cannot be all-loving
for he allows evil to prosper. But if He is both, then he cannot possibly be all-

2 Free will defense debunked (watch?v=UiPyDPWRHhE)

powerful. Again, the argument for free will does not add or help the argument of an
all-powerful (so on, so forth) creator.

These are very lovely contradictions to the argument. Honestly, I had been
quite happy for myself that finally there was a video I did not contradict upfront. I
thought Plantingas argument was sound and happily agreed to it the first time. But
as I have further researched, the inconsistencies and incongruities of its claims are
very patent. This should warrant qualification, however. I do not claim that God does
not exist, but only that Platingas argument for why evil and God can co-exist is not
satisfactory to me.