W.L. Craig on objective morality

W.L. Craig on Objective Morality.
Why he's full of beans.

W.L. Craig, a Christian apologist, discusses Socrates' question. 

Socrates asks Euthyphro: Which is it? The gods' laws are good because the gods made them? 

Or the gods are good because they obey good laws, but where did they get the laws? 

Defenders 2: Existence of God Part 20.
W.L. Craig, a Christian apologist, @ 34:00 says that God’s moral values are good because God is good. Whatever God commands is good. For example, it’s impossible for God to command parents to kill their children. 

 

But @40:30 he says that there are exceptions to the rule. 

Indeed God can command a parent to kill his child. For example, he says God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, but such a command was for the greater good. 

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/Defenders2_ExistenceofGod20.mp3

 

 

 Okay, now wait. If you do what you believe that God said for you to do for the greater good, you don't tell between good and bad, you only know what you believe God said.

 

Let's try it from a different angle.
Is God Necessary for Morality? Kagan vs Craig 3/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1d2cX99bI&feature=related
W.L. Craig proposes @03:15 that if there is absolute good and evil for humans, then a God is responsible for it.

 

That's a big "if." Besides, W.L. Craig doesn't say why God would be responsible for it. 

 

Anything less than a God-given morality has no basis for "objective morality," he says.
But then he says that humans can't know what objective morality is.
Talk about equivocation!

 

Craig concedes @04:00 that "God isn't necessary in order for human beings to exhibit certain patterns of social behavior which they call acting morally." 

Then he turns around and argues @05:15 that God is necessary for objective morality.

"If God does not exist, no objective moral values exist." 

 Now let me get this straight ...

Humans don't know what objective morals are to being with. But objective morals exist. Moreover, what the Bible says, you believe on faith--that's how you have objective morality.

 

It's like saying humans can hear about it from the Bible, but can't know if it's true. They can only take it on faith. 

 

Why didn't he say that to begin with? It was all he really wanted to say. 
He wouldn't have made a very good point if he had said it that way. But it would have saved time. "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
It's the same old apologist's thing.