In the debate video between William Lane Craig vs. Paul Kurtz, they both debate on whether goodness without God is good enough. Paul Kurtz is the chairman of the council for secular humanism and a professor of philosophy AmeriGas at SUNY Buffalo and William Lane Craig is a research professor of Philosophy. He also is a prodigious author of books and essays. Dr. Craig also has a doctorate degree in Theology and Philosophy. In this debate, Kurtz is going to argue that a person can be moral without having a belief in God, while Craig argues the complete opposite. Kurtz believes that a person can be moral without a belief in God. He argues that religion is an impediment to reality. What exactly does he mean? Religion is a way of keeping barriers
…show more content…
William L. Craig also agrees that a person can be morally good without the belief in God, however, he states that the debate is about the goodness without God. He argued that Kurtz showed the absence of God in order to show that nihilism is not true. But in Craig’s statement he argued for theism, which is when moral values are bounded by God. He made a statement that if theism were to be true, then we have a sound foundation for morality, and if it is not true, we do not have a sound foundation for morality. Craig started off with theism was true. If it was true, then objective moral values of good and evil are independent. An example he gave on this was the Holocaust. Although the holocaust was morally wrong, the Nazis believed that it was right. But on a theistic view on moral value, it is based on God. Craig stated that if God exist, then so does object moral value. Another point that Craig argues that if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral duties and for moral accountability. Our moral duties is a part of God’s command. With this command, we can assure the goodness, kind, and love from him. For his point on moral accountability, he states how God hold every person’s action accountable and that if something is wrong, you will be punished and a right action will be exonerated. According to Craig, if God does exist, then so does theism. Craig also argues about theism if it is false. If theism is false, then there is no reason for flourishing and objective moral values, duties, or moral accountability. Craig intends that humans are only animals and that animals do not have any moral
William L. Craig also agrees that a person can be morally good without the belief in God, however, he states that the debate is about the goodness without God. He argued that Kurtz showed the absence of God in order to show that nihilism is not true. But in Craig’s statement he argued for theism, which is when moral values are bounded by God. He made a statement that if theism were to be true, then we have a sound foundation for morality, and if it is not true, we do not have a sound foundation for morality. Craig started off with theism was true. If it was true, then objective moral values of good and evil are independent. An example he gave on this was the Holocaust. Although the holocaust was morally wrong, the Nazis believed that it was right. But on a theistic view on moral value, it is based on God. Craig stated that if God exist, then so does object moral value. Another point that Craig argues that if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral duties and for moral accountability. Our moral duties is a part of God’s command. With this command, we can assure the goodness, kind, and love from him. For his point on moral accountability, he states how God hold every person’s action accountable and that if something is wrong, you will be punished and a right action will be exonerated. According to Craig, if God does exist, then so does theism. Craig also argues about theism if it is false. If theism is false, then there is no reason for flourishing and objective moral values, duties, or moral accountability. Craig intends that humans are only animals and that animals do not have any moral