The Moral Argument for God

[RoadRunner79]

Relativism is different from subjectivism. Most members here, it seems, are of the subjectivist position when it comes to morality, not relativism.

How I see it is moral subjectivism is about feelings and preferences determining what's individually or universally right and wrong. Relativism is about accepting that the moral standards of other individuals or cultures should be respected no matter what.

I'd agree, there is a distinction between absolute/relativism and objective/subjective, although sometimes the line is quite fuzzy. In this context, I suppose it would the question of relative to what? I didn't write the article, but I would think it more accurate if subjectivism was used. Although I don't know that I have heard a relative position, that was not also subjective.

[IAOALGIV]

GOD IS ALL LOVE IS GOD GOD LOVES ALL

[henryp]

I'll go to bat for team theist on this one. 

If God is an all powerful being, he sets the laws for the universe.  The laws of physics would be his will.  So if he said the laws of morality were also a thing, they'd be a thing.  It'd be God's existence to define.  

Re changing his mind:  It'd be sort of like releasing a patch in a video game.  Now Titans get 6 hammers instead of 5.  Maybe the number of hammers could be viewed as subjective from the point of view of the game designer, but for those playing the game, the objective truth was that you got 6 hammers.  Now it's that you get 5.

Then you're back to a form of relativism. Morality is whatever God says, and God can change what he says on a whim, leading to the same thing theists accuse non-theists of: there's no absolute ground for the "morality" being followed.

I feel like you read the first paragraph, but not the second one.  Or maybe my terrible example just doesn't work, and works even less for people who don't play a specific video games, and I'm a dummy for doing an awful job communicating a point.

A field goal is worth 3 points is a fact in an american football game. The league, however, could change field goals to be worth 4 points.  Then a field goal being worth 4 points would be a fact.

If you control the laws of the universe, as God theoretically would if He existed, I think what He sets as the rules would be facts.  We couldn't say "gravity is just God's opinion" for example.

[IAOALGIV]

Then you're back to a form of relativism. Morality is whatever God says, and God can change what he says on a whim, leading to the same thing theists accuse non-theists of: there's no absolute ground for the "morality" being followed.

I feel like you read the first paragraph, but not the second one.  Or maybe my terrible example just doesn't work, and works even less for people who don't play a specific video games, and I'm a dummy for doing an awful job communicating a point.

A field goal is worth 3 points is a fact in an american football game. The league, however, could change field goals to be worth 4 points.  Then a field goal being worth 4 points would be a fact.

If you control the laws of the universe, as God theoretically would if He existed, I think what He sets as the rules would be facts.  We couldn't say "gravity is just God's opinion" for example.

What are you even talking about dude, gravitons aren't real

[athrock]

Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

It appears that we do.

Where do they come from?

---

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Are you certain of this? 

I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true. 

If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE

So, in the moral argument:

If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).

One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it. 

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.

You could just look up denying the antecedent and comparing it to your argument.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:

   If P, then Q.
   Not P.
   Therefore, not Q.

Wikipedia | Denying the antecedent

Your logic is wrong.  The proper form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
Objective moral values exist;
Therefore God Exists.

The two forms of the argument are equivalent. I didn't expect all this focus on the logic, so I've been forced to do some homework. Here is the full form of the version I posted in the OP:

1. If not Q, then not P.
2. Q.
3. Not not Q.
4. Therefore, not not P.
5. Therefore, P.

The argument is logically valid. Therefore, we ought to focus our discussion on the two premises:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Another poster, Irrational, seems to be committed to the proposition that objective moral values do not exist...anyone else? And if so, why?

Or is Irrational wrong? Again, why?

---

Why must a god create objective moral values?  Can you demonstrate that he 'must'?  You should look into the Euthyphro dilemma as well.  

Shortly it's:  Does something become moral just because God says so, or does God say something is moral because it's moral on it's own?  

If it's the former, then it's simply might makes right, divine command theory, and there's nothing 'absolute' or 'objective' about it if God can change his mind on something (which I assume he has the ability to do, being a god).

If it's the latter, then we don't need a God to 'create' morality if things are moral independently of God.

I have already given the common theist response to the dilemma.

Shortly it's: God IS good by nature; therefore, whatever He commands or does IS good.

To speak of God as "not good" is meaningless because goodness is an essential part of his character. If he were not good, then he would not be God.

---

The problem with some vague abstract deity is just that. It's vague and abstract. I don't see how any individual can go through life without screwing up sometimes, so my argument against yahweh likely pertains to everyone else. Just not in specific actions.

Yes something can be good for one, and not good for another.

Oxycontin can be good for one (a cancer patient, for example), but not for another (an addict).

But if your neighbor's son is molesting his own sisters, you're good with that?

You're gonna say no which means that we have agreed on the existence of at least one objective moral value. Others could be listed quickly.

So please explain how it can be true IN EVERY CASE that "something can be good for one, and not good for another."

---

So, if the man living next door to you decides that an honor killing is necessary because his teenage daughter walked out to the mailbox without a male escort and without wearing her burqa, are you gonna respect his culture "no matter what"?

You didn't read what I said in the quote, did you?

I did, but I must not have understood what you wrote.

[GrandizerII]

Relativism is different from subjectivism. Most members here, it seems, are of the subjectivist position when it comes to morality, not relativism.

How I see it is moral subjectivism is about feelings and preferences determining what's individually or universally right and wrong. Relativism is about accepting that the moral standards of other individuals or cultures should be respected no matter what.

I'd agree, there is a distinction between absolute/relativism and objective/subjective, although sometimes the line is quite fuzzy.  In this context, I suppose it would the question of relative to what?  I didn't write the article, but I would think it more accurate if subjectivism was used.   Although I don't know that I have heard a relative position, that was not also subjective.

The thing is that moral subjectivism doesn't require that one agree with everyone else's moral standards.

[GrandizerII]

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

It appears that we do.

Where do they come from?

It appearing does not mean it is actually so.

I told you earlier that ideas come from the mind.

And to be clear, since you didn't understand my other quote, I'm not advocating moral relativism here. I don't agree with every moral standard in existence.

[brewer]

A short list of people who got their "objective" morals from god.

http://theevangelists.blogspot.com/2011/...shame.html

Theists might want to clean up their own house first.

[Chad32]

Oxycontin can be good for one (a cancer patient, for example), but not for another (an addict).

But if your neighbor's son is molesting his own sisters, you're good with that?

You're gonna say no which means that we have agreed on the existence of at least one objective moral value. Others could be listed quickly.

So please explain how it can be true IN EVERY CASE that "something can be good for one, and not good for another."

Killing and stealing are pretty universally thought of as bad. Every culture has laws against them. Yet it's sometimes considered acceptable to kill someone who has you cornered and is coming at you with a knife, and to steal food if you're starving to death. you can get sympathy for those things, despite the fact that in general killing and stealing is wrong.

Molesting children is an acceptable practice in some cultures. Our good friends in Saudi Arabia call it boy-play. They are religious extremists, but they're our allies because they have oil. Can I think of a good reason to molest children? No. They can, apparently.

[RoadRunner79]

I'd agree, there is a distinction between absolute/relativism and objective/subjective, although sometimes the line is quite fuzzy.  In this context, I suppose it would the question of relative to what?  I didn't write the article, but I would think it more accurate if subjectivism was used.   Although I don't know that I have heard a relative position, that was not also subjective.

The thing is that moral subjectivism doesn't require that one agree with everyone else's moral standards.

I concur.... A moral subjectivist doesn't have to like or agree with another's moral standard. Their positions are equally valid however, so their is no foundation for judgement.