Unbelievable?
Unbelievable? 16 Oct 2010 - Philosophers Debate The Moral Argument for God
This episode isn’t summarized yet
Create a free account and summarize it. In a few minutes you’ll have the key takeaways and a section-by-section summary.
Show notes
Torturing children for fun - is that absolutely wrong?
The Moral Argument for God states that there are such things as objective moral facts, and that objective moral facts must have an immaterial source - namely God. Therefore God Exists... Simple right?
However, atheist Cambridge Philosopher Arif Ahmed disagrees with the first two premises. He debates with New Zealand's Christian philosopher Glenn People's on whether the argument proves the existence of God.
So, are moral beliefs nothing more than our "preferences"? What do we do with the intuition that certain things are absolutely wrong? Are atheists who affirm moral facts but deny God, being inconsistent?
For Glenn People's blog visit http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/
For Arif Ahmed see http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/teaching_staff/ahmed/ahmed_index.html
For more Christian/non Christian debates and discussions visit http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or get the podcast http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx or via Itunes
If you enjoyed this programme you may also enjoy:
Unbelievable? 7 Mar 2009 "The Reason for God" - Pastor Timothy Keller & Atheist Norman Bacrac
To join the discussion at the Premier Community visit http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable