Originally posted by David C
If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'.
Wordgames. If by 'objective value' you mean 'the value "god" assigns by creating us', then nothing. If by 'objective value' you mean the theory of our evolution on the third rock from this particular star, then assign the probability of our existence to that as 'objective value'. It's a pretty high value.
Having said that, 'value' is meaningl ...[text shortened]... ates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
It follows then, from this definition of objective value, that the life of an infant, or a handicapped person, or a mentally retarded human being is objectively less valuable than that of a healthy adult human being - right? (In fact, the objective value - in terms of survival/existence probability - of the classes of people mentioned above would be less than that of many animals and plants as well).
The obvious follow-up question - how does your subjective value of human life correlate to the objective value you've defined above?
Having said that, 'value' is meaningless as an objective idea.
How is this any different from what I said in my previous post ("People really don't have [objective] value" )?
You chided me for presuming to know what a reasonable atheist would feel about the value of human life; but it seems to me that your view of human life is no different from the one I stated (and I'm sure you think you are a reasonable atheist).
The thread I referenced demonstrates (IMO) that the notion of 'objective value' as defined by theists like Craig are nonsense.
It does nothing of the sort. All it does is point out that Craig is making a logical fallacy when he asserts that evolutionists are constrained to define human value in terms of evolutionary survival (the is-ought fallacy).
Based on the definition you gave for objective value above, it seems you have defined objective value for human life exactly as Craig thought you (an evolutionist) would.