The Cumulative Argument for the Whingdingdilly

[Ooberman]

In a debate with Edwin Curley, William Lane Craig said in his opening statement, "These reasons are independent of one another, so that if even one of them is sound, it furnishes good grounds for believing that God exists. Taken together, they constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-exis ... z2JqYx3lbK

In that debate he used three arguments:

1. Kalam
2. Teleological
3. Moral

The first obvious criticism is that the moral argument and Kalam have nothing to do with each other. There is no "powerful" connection between the cause of the visible universe and moral values. After all, they could exist independently of each other, theoretically.

And, neither require a God.

So:


1.

The Kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The theist then slips in, usually, "This cause we call God".

Well, the theist MAY call it whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it IS God.

That is, I call it the Cause of the Universe, and it fits perfectly within a naturalistic framework.

After all, for the Cause to be called "God" the theist needs to prove the Cause is ALSO tied to other aspects of God in a sufficient and necessary way.

It's not enough to declare "we know the universe had a cause" (Something science has verified, which means Kalam is now redundant.) and use it for God if it equally applies to other explanations.


Craig argues, "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.�

I argue, “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, Cause of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.�

My argument sounds like a plausible sketch of how an event like a vacuum fluctuation in quantum foam could explain the observable universe. (The quick analogy is that our universe is like a bubble in a pot of water, sans pot, and the water is the infinite sea of undifferentiated energy)

That is, by using Kalam, we both arrive at a proof for our beliefs. Craig, however, tries to add "intelligent" which is a poorly defined term and certainly only makes sense if there is a Mind, and Minds only make sense if there are Brains. Brains only make sense if there is matter. Matter only makes sense if there is Time and Space.

And Intelligence only makes sense if there is Time.

This is one of those examples that Craig tries to overwhelm the audience by piling on too much and hoping they don't recognize his addition of the things he REALLY needs to prove: intelligence or some personal aspect.

His argument for the personal aspects of God, are, again, not part of Kalam, but a separate argument all together; the neck of the Whingdingdilly.


2.
WLC then moves to the teleological argument. Well, this is one of the least used arguments used, but Craig being a great orator uses it to great effect on people who are already theists.

Here, I am going to counter this argument for the Whingdingdilly's hind legs and point out that there is scientific evidence that people may be prone to belief in God due to brain activity, and not because there is a God. (Similarly some people believe in ghosts, phantoms and other non-existent beings because of the sense of agency and other psychological states, as well as confusion over data we get from the environment and our inability to properly assess it.)

For example, pareidolia is common. You can do it yourself. Find a richly patterned wallpaper and stare at it for a while. You will see "design" of faces in it.

Of course, there was no design of faces, but our human brains evolved to recognize faces, so we are exceptionally good at finding them.

This is what Craig preys on - he is hoping people use this evolved trait to extend to the natural world; design and agency.

Clearly, there is a reason ID (which was the most serious push of the teleological argument to date) is not taught in schools or is a serious field of study.

I don't feel the need to continue with a rebuttal of the teleological argument since it is becoming less used by theists in scholarly circles for good reason.

If someone wants to press it, I will continue.


3.
The moral argument, or the Whingdingdilly's head, is not a serious concern either and everyone calls it Craig's weakest argument.

The reason it is weak is because he presumes: "if objective morals exist, then god exists".

This is clearly contradicted by deontology and the vast majority of philosophers.

And, if that's not enough to stop Craig's argument, it's enough to point out that saying "objective morals SEEM to exist, therefore they exist". Yes, there need to be arguments to explain this seeming truth, but it would have been a lot harder for Craig to argue his "killing children just seems wrong" in ancient times when it was a normal practice.

And, I might add, the world today kills millions of children in the form of abortion and has legalized it. If "killing children" is objectively wrong, then we, collectively, don't seem to realize it.

This means the objectivist must add certain qualifiers, which under deontology are perfectly explainable.

"It's wrong to torture babies for no reason". Well, but on naturalism, we have reasons not to do things for no reason, whether it's torturing babies, killing witches, or stoning children, or maintaining realms of eternal torture.



All in all, the arguments for God all seem to be flawed, and, even if they are persuasive in any one area, they don't seem to get us to the argument the the Whingdingdilly (God) exists.

That is, let's say the Moral argument works. It only shows, then, that there may be a God of Moral Values that was created when the universe was created.

Or, if Kalam is an argument for God, it only shows that the God that created the universe was capable of creating a universe, not making it appear designed (after all the Kalam God could be a Cause-maker, and he eternally pumps out causes that, in this one case, caused this universe).

Or, if teleological argument is true, it only shows that the cause of the universe may have caused something to design a universe...


So, my challenge to the theist is prove the actually Whingdingdilly exists, not each of it's attributes, which can be used to prove more mundane and naturalistic claims.

Yes, the elephant, giraffe, camel, rhino and reindeer exist.
The Whingdingdilly is what needs to be argued for.

So far I have not, to date, seen any theist argue why each argument must support the other. I have seen no argument the the "cumulative argument" is sound.

Can someone provide a logical argument for why the "cumulative argument" should be considered seriously?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

As it turned out, Ehrman had made numerous self-promoting claims regarding himself, and all Craig did was to point out that Ehrman's self-promoting should not be mistaken for an actual argument.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[Mithrae]

If objective morals don't exist, the problem of 'evil' or suffering is a complaint of subjective preference: I don't like this, that and the other thing about this planet, therefore a benevolent God does not exist. It has no more merit than an argument from natural beauty - I like all these wonderful things about our world, therefore a marvellous God must exist - because there is no connection between our subjective preferences and the nature of reality. Whether they call it 'evil' or 'suffering,' the implicit reasoning of atheist apologists is that they are describing standards which a God must not or could not violate if it were benevolent; in other words, objective standards.

Actually it's a tactic known as reduction ad absurdum. The POE proponent need only acknowledge that the concept of God entails the concept of absolute good and evil, and then by assuming the existence of God arguendo, can show that the God-concept is internally inconsistent.

Show by God's morals that God is immoral? I suspect there is no version of theism in which that would work. Euthyphro's dilemma is worth considering, but that's another story. Without asserting a knowable objective morality without a God, the problem of evil remains merely an appeal to personal opinions on what life should be like, no matter how much Latin you use to describe it

----

...I very much doubt that Craig is the best that Christianity has to offer, any more than Hitchens, Dawkins or Harris are likely to be the best that atheism has to offer. As you've noted, they're popular because they provide entertainment, whether in debate or in books which summarize and simplify key points for common worldviews of a popular audience...

There is a catch-22 here: if you write at a popular level, you will necessarily simplify and leave yourself open to charges of engaging in this or that "fallacy." But if you tighten up your arguments for an academic audience, the popular-level people won't be able to read or comprehend the text at all.

True, which is why I wouldn't judge Craig solely on the basis of his live debate rhetoric and tactics (and I've seen little enough of them!).

----

If objective morals don't exist, the problem of 'evil' or suffering is a complaint of subjective preference: I don't like this, that and the other thing about this planet, therefore a benevolent God does not exist. It has no more merit than an argument from natural beauty - I like all these wonderful things about our world, therefore a marvellous God must exist - because there is no connection between our subjective preferences and the nature of reality. Whether they call it 'evil' or 'suffering,' the implicit reasoning of atheist apologists is that they are describing standards which a God must not or could not violate if it were benevolent; in other words, objective standards.

But as far as I can tell the notion of objective standards of conduct, which aren't based ultimately in human cultures and evolution, is irrational in non-religious worldviews.

Either way, the position I would take is that there is vigorous debate about the issue and Objective morals don't require a God, and we aren't sure if there ARE objective moral values.

That there SEEM to be is one thing. Of course, it SEEMS like the Sun is going around us....

Objective morals may not require a supreme deity (witness Buddhism for example), but they obviously require a worldview in which the universe is not indifferent to such values - in other words, not naturalism or secular atheism.

I think it's perfectly fair for Craig or anyone else to point out that if objective morality almost universally seems to be the case, folk who deny objective morality or deny its implications acquire a significant burden of proof.

As for academic Christianity being dead, in this article atheist philosopher Quentin Smith laments quite the opposite; a trend since the late '60s of increasing numbers and talent of theistic philosophers:
Quickly, naturalists found themselves a mere bare majority, with many of the leading thinkers in the various disciplines of philosophy, ranging from philosophy of science (e.g., Van Fraassen) to epistemology (e.g., Moser), being theists. The predicament of naturalist philosophers is not just due to the influx of talented theists, but is due to the lack of counter-activity of naturalist philosophers themselves. God is not “dead� in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.

I have to wonder if the rise in theologians are because of the business of universities, the increase in theology seminars, the increase in population and the decline in the Church playing the role of preparing ministers.

I beg to differ that God isn't dead in academia OUTSIDE Theology. I can't think of one important work that has been produced in the last 100 years that attributes something to God, or the last Nobel given for a serious claim that God did something.

That article is by an (atheist) philosopher, and is about philosophy - not theology. You also seem to be confusing methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism; that academic disciplines don't refer to a God as explanation or conclusion is not the same as academic disciplines disproving or denying said God.

If you wanted the best of Christian or theistic philosophers, perhaps some of those names might be worth looking at - Van Fraassen, Moser or Platinga. I'm just guessing of course. If you were to ask Theopoesis or Slopeshoulder (if he's still around) I'm sure they could give you much more informed recommendations on the thinkers that academic Christianity has to offer - and I'd guess that few if any of them would be conservative American Protestants!

There are too many theologians, and theologies to mention. The best we can do is take the most popular since none of them have any evidence their particular view is right.

How do we judge Tillich or Plantinga against Fred Phelps? Other than the "yuck" factor, there is just as much reason Fred Phelp's God could reign as Plantingas.

If you know nothing about the bible, Christian history, sociology, psychology and philosophy, sure. Data and methodology are features common to all academic disciplines - even when the data in question is ancient texts (as in history and theology) or accounts of people's experiences (as in psychology and theology) - but there's no objective methodology which would produce Fred Phelp's views from the data set of either the bible or any long-standing Christian tradition. If you're interested in theology specifically, in a discussion with Nickman a while back Theopoesis offered some very informative comments on its development as of the 4th century in context of the criteria by which other academic disciplines are defined - the discussion starts here.

[S.T. Ranger]

Hello Ooberman, thanks for the response.

You are welcome, thank you for the questions and comments.

It seems there has to be an exclusion as well as a definition of what would be considered serious, sober, and expert. It has been my experience that nearly everything that opposes the popular teachings of those that are called Scientists is almost always called "junk science," a popular term among atheists.

For a reason: Reason.

"That which has better evidence is better attested, that which is better attested is more rational to believe."

However, what I would suggest is that we all have the same evidence from a temporal perspective concerning the "evidence." How we interpret that evidence is what seems to be in question. If one interprets radiometric dating as guesswork they are considered ignorant. If one considers evolution nothing more than a theory they are considered ignorant. If one believes there was a canopy of water that surrounded the earth at one time they are considered ignorant.

We have mountains of solid data and millions of people who, over the last 300 years test and retest. The model seems pretty solid.

Regardless, there is no majority of data that threatens a materialist view of the universe. If there are questions, there are questions. Neither the theist or atheist get to use questions to support their position.

Yet one point I would raise is this: would you concede that just as we have historically made scientific conclusions in the past that we have since gone beyond and can see that the introduction of new evidence has opened the door for further exploration, we are just as likely to develop new information which will open the door for what once we thought impossible?

Sure, lot's of things are possible, like there is no God.

You mention a couple of things that in my view illustrate just how little we do know, which should I think cause people to consider the jury still out, lol.

Sure, I think we should consider the jury out on all the things we don't know and accept, provisionally, all the things that seem to be proven.

The things that seem to be proven (if I hit my finger with a hammer, I will feel pain, e.g.), have no suggestion of a God.

So why posit one?

In large part I agree with this: there are a number of reasons why people believe what they do, and from an objective unbiased viewpoint we can look at certain beliefs and see them to be nonsense.

But, take for instance my belief that scripture records a flood. I look at certain evidence which I believe points to precisely such an event yet it is considered ignorant.

It is not a belief induced by mythology but incorporates actual history verified by secular sources. Not induced through psychology, nor a physical cause, but just as you express, years of looking at the issues.

Not being an expert in hydrology, geology, history, or the other number of fields that I would need to be an expert in to know the answer, I will refrain from telling you what I believe.

I will tell you that the majority of experts in hydrology, geology, history and the other number of fields that would know the answer all conclude there was no global flood.

You, as a minority view, would have to have astounding evidence to prove otherwise and a Nobel is waiting when you provide it.

I accept you may have personal beliefs about the matter, but as laymen, what does our opinion really matter in the face of overwhelming expert consensus?

I would be curious as to what "fringe groups" you refer to.

Any group that holds a minority view from the consensus of experts.

The assumption that the "general masses" are ignorant illustrates you believe your beliefs just as much as the ignorant masses. The question is what both the embrace of your beliefs as well as the rejection of those that embrace religion as ignorant is based on.

No, you misunderstand me. I am certainly ignorant. I am not an expert in any field that would matter, except one might say "counter-apologetics" (And we'll see how much of an expert I am, I suppose!)

My position is this: I accept what the consensus of experts claim, provisionally, and in the absence of a consensus I reserve judgement.
I have personal, private beliefs, but no one cares about those, I am sure.

There are many people that can relate stories that cannot be explained and much of them have to do with healings. Men are diagnosed with terminal diseases and survive, for example. But it is not my intention to get into evidence pong, simply to ask how it is that many do not see just how exclusive the "evidence" is, and how even with the evidence we have, there is far more that we do not know which might turn the tide concerning belief in regards to science.

For instance, whether there are dimensions beyind those we can recognize today.

I think this will be the "final frontier" of science, personally.

You may be right or wrong, or somewhere in between.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience, a secular source:

According to a Gallup poll, approximately eight million Americans claim to have had a near-death experience.[12] Some commentators, such as Simpson,[13] claim that the number of near-death experiencers may be underestimated. People who have had a near-death experience may not be comfortable discussing the experience with others, especially when the NDE is understood as a paranormal incident.

The earliest accounts of NDE can be traced to the Myth of Er, recorded in the 4th century BC by Plato's The Republic (10.614-10.621), wherein Plato describes a soldier telling of his near-death experiences.

NDEs are one issue that I believe show our lack of understanding scientifically about a number of things. Accounts are numerous and despite the fact that a person can be determinied to the best of our scientific capability as being dead, thus having the supposed source of our being terminated, people come back to life and recount an experience they claim take place in the interval.

Are some of these bogus? Probably. Are some misdiagnosis? Probably. Are they all to be discounted? Not sure why they would be.

As far as "revelations" and supernatural events," given our lack of understanding concerning the human brain itself, it also seems foolish to conclude that some may have abilities that the rest of us for some reason do not have.

I believe the reason we do not employ the full use of our brain to be a result of man having lesseened from what he was when originally created. But I cannot say that there are not those that even if by accident may be tapping into something that the rest of us cannot.

You may be right, wrong, or somewhere in between. There's a Nobel waiting for you if you can demonstrate it one way or another.

I see no reason to believe one way or another, except the experts seem to err on the side that NDE's are not supernatural.

Could you supply some of these anecdotes and anomalies, if you don't mind? I would be curious to see what you contrast what you believe with that which you reject.

For example, strange, unexplained events that leave no trace, but people swear happened.
They deserve some attention, but we all know the vast majority are usually explained quite easily... without invoking spirits or gods.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, Ooberman. And this is precisely the point I would raise.

Whereas you imply that a better understanding of the brain would contribute to proof that God does not exist, there are some of us that think it would rather point to His existence.

So the counterpoint would be "there is nothing that indicates it is impossible for the brain to produce psychokinetic abilities, either," and while science has not demonstrated this function, it would be foolish to rule it out just because we do not understand the brain.

Except that what we DO know has no requirement for God being real or necessary.

The exact evidence we would expect if there was no God.

Now, if we discovered the brain could be removed without any damage to the person, then that would be something, I suppose. Or something similar. I'm not suggesting I know what evidence would be necessary for God to be proven. That's the theist's job.

I agree. To embrace a belief is the hard part, really. And there is a belief that goes beyond the nominal beliefs that I think the larger population of history and the current world professes, but a belief that extends to such a fervent belief one is willing to die for it.

People, sadly, die for all kinds of things.

Would you die for science?

No, but why is this important?
Why do we need to die for things in order for them to be true?

Unless one has a relationship with God, can they dismiss this relationship with any more credibility than they can dismiss man's ability to move objects with his mind?

Two hundred years ago, did anyone seriously believe men could walk on the moon? It was not until they believed firmly enough and put the effort into testing this ability that they could actually say they believed it could be done.

I think many people theorized how we might go to the Moon. Science over the last 300 years made it happen.

If science couldn't figure it out, prayer certainly wasn't going to do it!

Not familiar with Tillich so I cannot remark on this.

Have to get going but thanks for the response.

God bless.

Perhaps you could familiarize yourself with Tillich. He's a Christian or so he says... other Christians have debated this.... But, ain't that the way religion works... built on the shoulders of heretics?

Hello again Ooberman, excellent response, thanks.

Having only a few minutes this morning I will just comment on a few (and any time I say that I don't always follow through, lol) things in view:

For a reason: Reason.

"That which has better evidence is better attested, that which is better attested is more rational to believe."

There is a difference between "reason" and majority opinion," don't you think? At this point in time there is a monopoly in certain areas such as places of learning that are proponents of secular humanistic belief. Evolution, for example, is thought to be the reasonable view based on the evidence. However, how many are exposed to the "junk science" set forth by believing scientists in their education?

Is there a parallel between the indoctrination of children in beliefs that are humanistic with indoctrination into religious beliefs? And if so, would we believe that those that have such great faith in reason and science have this faith strictly based upon reason...rather than indoctrination, which just as in religion can certainly bias perspective?

Would we say that a majority belief makes it impossible for the majority to be wrong?

We have mountains of solid data and millions of people who, over the last 300 years test and retest. The model seems pretty solid.

Regardless, there is no majority of data that threatens a materialist view of the universe. If there are questions, there are questions. Neither the theist or atheist get to use questions to support their position.

Being one that speaks to a lot of people that have beliefs based upon the same source, the Bible, I can see how people come to the conclusions they hold, usually. Sometimes there are those whose beliefs do not resemble the basis, but for the most part the majority run a fairly similar set of beliefs. What I try to do, though, is to examine the basis for those beliefs. In theological discussion, there is for most a set structure that while in areas that seem inconsequential, sometimes it is in those areas we come to see the route which leads to heresy. Like the old saying goes, "For lack of a nail..."

When you say...

Regardless, there is no majority of data that threatens a materialist view of the universe.

...could equally be said "there is no mountain of evidence to threaten a belief in God." In the details (and for us the devil really is in the details, lol), just as in our attempts to exegete scripture, there is the potential for positions that not only lead to erroneous and premature conclusions (and one thing I have learned about study of scripture is it is an ever ongoing process) but also prevent one from advancing to an area where a better understanding can be aquired. Nano technology would be an example of this. Compare this knowledge with the knowledge previously held, and perhaps you may understand the point I am hoping to make.

We have mountains of solid data and millions of people who, over the last 300 years test and retest. The model seems pretty solid.

Not sure how the model can be all that solid when it is discovering much that in some cases replaces previously held views.

And I am just about out of time so I will stop with this last quote:

Sure, I think we should consider the jury out on all the things we don't know and accept, provisionally, all the things that seem to be proven.

The things that seem to be proven (if I hit my finger with a hammer, I will feel pain, e.g.), have no suggestion of a God.

So why posit one?

This is a good question. Why is it that so many do? Why is it that the majority of the world has some form of belief in God or gods? And if it is reason to assume that a majority opinion makes it reasonable to assume something as truth, then would there not be overwhelming suggestion that there is something to this which we just have not been able to, scientifically, put our finger on?

Just so you know, I am not suggesting I believe this, as majority opinion in history has generally turned out to be in error. If we examined the basis for majority opinion, no matter the scale, whether it is the majority within the scientific community or the majority of the Catholic Church, I think we begin to understand why it is that the majority opinion exists in the first place.

The big question would be, for me, is the position held aquired through a personal knowledge of the "evidence," or is it held because the work of others is taken at face value without question.

In both the circles we run in, Ooberman, there are people that promote doctrines that they themselves have not really examined. It is sad, but it is true. So we would question whether it is a good thing to promote doctrines we ourselves have not fully researched. There are many that can tell you what they believe, but not why they believe it. There are many that show great faith in the sources they receive their information, but do not have a working knowledge of the material.

So that takes us to personal bias and the beliefs that have been fostered in us: if we are presented with a reasonable basis to question the positions we hold...will we be reaonable in response? I think most of us would say yes, of course, however, I have not found this to be true. I guess some would charge me with the same thing, and perhaps they are right. But so far, I have not seen the mountain of evidence to be rock solid concerning a number of things that serve as a basis for rejection of God. Oftentimes the "proof" given has been either questionable as to the dogmatic conclusions that result or it fails to take into consideration other aspects which when left out, force a conclusion one way or another.

Okay, out of time. I admit this post is basically just rambling, lol, but it is enjoyable once in a while to just...have a discussion. Appreciate that. Some of the best discussions I have had have been with scientists and I always find it fascinating.

God bless.

[PhiloKGB]

Show by God's morals that God is immoral? I suspect there is no version of theism in which that would work.

I'm not sure I know what that means. Any philosophical system can be internally inconsistent.

Euthyphro's dilemma is worth considering, but that's another story. Without asserting a knowable objective morality without a God, the problem of evil remains merely an appeal to personal opinions on what life should be like, no matter how much Latin you use to describe it

If you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is, I humbly suggest you check it out. It's a universally accepted technique.

Objective morals may not require a supreme deity (witness Buddhism for example), but they obviously require a worldview in which the universe is not indifferent to such values - in other words, not naturalism or secular atheism.

Various secular objective moralities have been proposed. Their successes are, of course, matters of significant dispute, but it's arguably not "obvious" that they all fail.

I think it's perfectly fair for Craig or anyone else to point out that if objective morality almost universally seems to be the case, folk who deny objective morality or deny its implications acquire a significant burden of proof.

Except Craig doesn't actually propose an objective morality. He says that all (or most) people behave in way W, therefore W is objectively moral. No doubt you can see the problem there.

[Ooberman]

Without asserting a knowable objective morality without a God, the problem of evil remains merely an appeal to personal opinions on what life should be like, no matter how much Latin you use to describe it

Agreed, and it may actually be the case. Just because it's scary doesn't mean it's not true.

[playhavock]

What I want to know is, what credantals etc must someone have for Creig to debate them? Becuase I'd love to debate WLC and pwon him with logic.

[assisigirl]

Maybe the guy at the start should have considered an emotive argument for God. This creature is seriously cute, I recognise its parts, I want one. Why are they trying to pin him down?. Oh, my God!. (He is a he, right?)

[Ooberman]

Are there really no Theists willing to take a stab at explaining why the "Cumulative Case" argument is valid?

If not, I am afraid Theism is in a horrible state of affairs. Worse than I thought.

[assisigirl]

Hi Ooberman: I have become emotionally attached to the Swingingdiddytingy.That is the trouble with pets. I was watching a BBC programme about creature survival techniques which allowed them to survive the Cretaceous Impact Catastrophy unlike the dinosaurs.
Guys like these managed it.
http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/medi ... 1_t460.jpg
..............................................................
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/naturelibrary/i ... ypus_1.jpg
..............................................................

Your cartoon analogy has been doing my head in .It is very clever. We imagine the creature because we see it. This is akin to being told what god is like and accepting it, ie being born into a religion.
To conceive such a creature can only be done initially from what you know. I think that is the point . I may talk about this later if you like. Not a theist in sight. Its been a tough few days for them. I trust they will survive though.

[Mithrae]

Show by God's morals that God is immoral? I suspect there is no version of theism in which that would work.

I'm not sure I know what that means. Any philosophical system can be internally inconsistent.

Potentially perhaps, but not all of them are. A problem of evil reductio ad absurdum cannot logically be applied to a theism which suggests that 'good' is an expression of the nature of God. Nor can it be applied to a theism which suggests that God is good by virtue of his knowledge and adherence to some absolute principles, since God's knowledge of such principles would obviously far exceed our own.

Euthyphro's dilemma is worth considering, but that's another story. Without asserting a knowable objective morality without a God, the problem of evil remains merely an appeal to personal opinions on what life should be like, no matter how much Latin you use to describe it

If you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is, I humbly suggest you check it out. It's a universally accepted technique.

I know what it is. You don't seem to understand that it can't be applied to some viewpoints, including most or all theistic views of God's 'goodness.'

Objective morals may not require a supreme deity (witness Buddhism for example), but they obviously require a worldview in which the universe is not indifferent to such values - in other words, not naturalism or secular atheism.

Various secular objective moralities have been proposed. Their successes are, of course, matters of significant dispute, but it's arguably not "obvious" that they all fail.

If the universe is indifferent to moral values - as in the case of naturalism and secular atheism - then there can be no objective morality any more than there can be objective language or an objective political system. These tools of sentient beings' interactions might be defined or structured to largely avoid individual subjectivity, but they're obviously not objective in any ontological sense. Mentioning that some folk very controversially propose otherwise is not a rebuttal of this obvious fact, anymore than mentioning Creationism would answer a claim that evolution is obviously true.