Category Archives: Is-Ought Fallacy

Leibnizian Moral Argument?

Posted on June 29, 2014 by Maryann Spikes

I think my moral argument for God’s existence is similar to Leibniz’ cosmological argument (except it has to do with the explanation of the Good, a.k.a. the Golden Rule). If you’d rather not say “the Golden Rule,” then say what everyone … Continue reading →

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | Leave a comment

Defining the good: The Golden Rule

Posted on August 15, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

http://www.pflaum.com IN DESPERATE NEED OF EDITING/UPDATING, DON’T JUDGE! A major argument for God’s existence is that, if there is no God, there is no “true” good, because truth is that which corresponds to reality, to real being. A common counter-argument … Continue reading →

Posted in Euthyphro Dilemma, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief | Leave a comment

The Moral Argument

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Maryann Spikes

Update 1/30: Expanded on some things The Moral Argument I don’t like the traditional version of this argument that argues from the moral law to a moral law-giver: Traditional Argument from Morality Premise 1: There is an objective moral law. Premise … Continue reading →

Posted in Apologetics, Apologetics Toolbox, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | 4 Comments

Poll: What grounds objective moral truth?

Posted on December 31, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

Choose one option from this poll: God wills the good in accordance with his loving nature. The good is a construct of God, man or nature. Nothing, there are only constructs which do not obligate. In other words: What grounds … Continue reading →

Posted in Apologetics Toolbox, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Is-Ought Fallacy, Natural Law and Divine Command | Leave a comment

The Humean-Platonic tripartite (Ought-Is-Belief) theory of (moral) knowledge

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

The Humean-Platonic tripartite (Ought-Is-Belief) theory of (moral) knowledge It is possible to blend Hume’s is-ought distinction (1) in Ethics with Plato’s justified-true-belief theory of knowledge. Simply put, whatever sort of beliefs one is talking about, including moral beliefs, they must be … Continue reading →

Posted in Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, William Lane Craig | Leave a comment

Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.6: Truth Defined and Defended

Posted on May 6, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

The apologetics study group LOVES this quote from Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics: “We may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.” p. 124 It’s actually a variant of a quote commonly attributed to Daniel Patrick … Continue reading →

Posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Natural Law and Divine Command, Norris' Epistemology, Reviews and Interviews | 3 Comments

This week’s Christian Carnival is…

Posted on April 18, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

…here. I host it at my new on-line portfolio blog :) I am not including my own submission this time, because I am still chewing on an idea for an article that talks about the difference between Hume’s is-ought distinction, which … Continue reading →

Posted in Carnival, Is-Ought Fallacy | Leave a comment

Philosophers’ Carnival #138

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

Welcome again to Philosophers’ Carnival, “which aims to showcase the best philosophical posts from a wide range of weblogs. We invite submissions from bloggers and readers, and collate the submitted posts into one big round-up (or ‘carnival’) every three weeks, … Continue reading →

Posted in Carnival, Golden Rule, Is-Ought Fallacy, Ontological Argument, Stephen Law's evil god argument, William Lane Craig | 31 Comments

What being is described by a without-God good?

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

From a discussion in a Veritas forum: If you ask: To what does a real ought correspond? …or… What does a real ought describe? …you will notice that science will have as easy a time answering that as answering: What … Continue reading →

Posted in Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Is-Ought Fallacy | Leave a comment

Is-ought discussion with WLC

Posted on January 7, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

I had a discussion with Dr. Craig in a note I posted on Facebook, but I am deleting Facebook Sunday and the discussion was never resolved, so I am moving it to here. Hopefully he can reply here or in … Continue reading →