Layman’s Lapse: On an Incomplete Moral Argument for Theism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C. Stephen Layman contends that an argument supporting theism over naturalism can be constructed based on three defensible, non-question-begging premises about the moral order.Previous critics of Layman's argument have challenged the truth of these premises.We stipulate them arguendo but go on to show that there is a deeper problem: a fourth premise introduced to complete the argument-the "completion premise," as we call it-is true only if we assume that God exists (begging the question about naturalism) or we concede that there is no afterlife (contrary to theism).We close with suggestions for how Layman's argument must be strengthened to meet with dialectical success.According to C. Stephen Layman, although skepticism about the viability of moral arguments is "widespread among philosophers," there are nevertheless three defensible theses about the moral order that "do not beg the question of God's existence, and . . .they support theism over naturalism." 1 Previous critics have challenged the truth of Layman's premises; we stipulate them arguendo. 2We go on to argue, however, that even if Layman's moral triad begs no questions, it still fails to deliver theism.The Achilles' heel of the argument lies elsewhere-with a fourth premise added by Layman ex post facto to complete the argument: the "completion premise," as we call it.The purpose of this article is to show that Layman faces a fatal dilemma: either his "completion premise" is true only if there is a god (which begs the question against the naturalist), or he must assume (contrary to theism) that there is no afterlife in which "the long-term best interests of the morally virtuous are realized."We conclude with some specific 170
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".