Unbelievable? - Philosophers Debate The Moral Argument for God

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?

Want to read more? REGISTER FREE for Premier Unbelievable? Membership!

If you are already a Member  or have an account  with another Premier website, you can SIGN IN now.

 

Register for a FREE Premier Unbelievable? Membership

Be equipped to confidently defend your Faith, tackle untruths and demonstrate that the Gospel is good news for everyone.

Membership includes unlimited access to the website, a weekly newsletter, bonus content and much more.

 

To continue reading REGISTER FOR FREE MEMBERSHIP