wallym Wrote:

athrock Wrote:So, the Moral Argument says that if God does not exist, then OMV's do not exist.

Or

If OMV's exist, then God exists.

OP
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.

You're doing it correctly now.  You just flipped 1 in the OP making it not work.  Literally, need to mind your P's and Q's.

Oops, I'm wrong with you now.

But not wrong in form. Now the only problem with it is that there is no convincing reason to think the premises are true.

(December 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm)athrock Wrote: I'll continue going through your lengthy response, but first I need to point out that all you've done is the same thing another poster has done: you've offered Snipty as a candidate for the office of God.

Only if your sole criteria for what constitutes a god is "makes objective moral values," in which case the argument is circular anyway. It's just "if there are objective moral values, there is the thing that makes objective moral values."

If your definition of god includes any other attributes than just "makes objective moral values," and I would suggest that most mainstream conceptions of god do, then Snipty is different from god.

Quote:None. And that only makes sense because if Snipty is the source of all OBJECTIVE (and that's the key word) moral values, then Snipty is a legitimate contender for the title.

Then the argument is useless for demonstrating the thing that it sets out to demonstrate, if an infinite series of other, patently made up beings also fulfill the criteria.

Quote: Any being that is the source of objective moral values must be a SUPREME BEING - regardless of whether it's a god or a raccoon.

Ha ha, how the hell do you intend to demonstrate that?

Quote:If there's no evidence for Snipty why did you propose him/her as a possible source for OMV's? I'm just poking the bear...the real problem with your argument follows next.

There's no evidence for god, which didn't stop you, is my point.

Quote:Arguments such as the Moral Argument ARE the evidence for god or Snipty.

Arguments are not evidence. Arguments are, you know, arguments. Good arguments reference evidence in order to support their conclusions, but the moral argument doesn't reference anything but fiat assertions at all.

Quote:If I can show that the existence of OMV's require the existence of Snipty and that OMV's do, in fact, exist, then I have proven the existence of Snipty. That goes for some of the other classic arguments, too, btw. Cosmological, Teleological, etc.

So what you're saying is that the truth of the premises of the moral argument are contingent upon you being able to show evidence that they're correct... which is both tacit admission that arguments are not evidence in isolation, and agreement that the moral argument contains no evidential justification for its premises.

... Why do you think this is a compelling argument, again?

Quote:However, YOU are hung up on your need for empirical evidence. I'm not sure what you would expect...giant letters written in the sky? Or the classic demand for the healing of an amputee complete with video tape and the sworn testimony of the entire staff of Johns Hopkins?

It seems to me that you fail to appreciate the power of philosophical arguments.

If you're going to make a claim about objective reality- which "god exists," is- then yes, I'm going to need more than a philosophical argument, because a philosophical argument that cannot demonstrate that it reflects reality is what we call, in technical terms, "making things up." You can spin as many loops of logic, spout as many premises as you desire, but if what you're saying does not align with the objective reality that it intends to make claims about, then a reasonable person will bend to the actual evidence and not the bloviating arguer committed to ignoring it.

Besides, the existence of god isn't a philosophical question. It's a claim being made about objective reality, which is exactly the sort of thing that empirical evidence is most apt to test.

Quote:This is simply more of the same, so I'll just repeat my point stated earlier: Snipty is (according to you) possibly god. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Seriously, I don't really care what you call it: Yahweh, Allah, FSM, Snipty...these are just cultural designations. If a being exists which is the source and measure of all OMV's, then that being has met at least one reasonable threshold for being considered SUPREME.

Do you want a circular argument? Because defining your conclusion solely by how it fulfills the criteria of your premises is how you get a circular argument.

Quote:I'm with you so far, I think. Which is to say, I understand, but I don't think we're any closer to understanding how we establish OMV's without a fixed reference.

The point here is that OMVs are not necessary, nor are subjective morals particularly scary, or an "anything goes," scenario.

Quote:Ah, shades of Sam Harris. So, you're defining morality as that which produces a positive, pragmatic benefit for a sentient being. Is that what it means to be morally good?

If you have a moral system that doesn't concern itself with the well being of the moral actors operating within it, then you very quickly run out of moral actors, and hence, you lose your moral system. It can't be transmitted or maintained without moral actors to do so.

Besides which, are you now asserting that all the things you find to be morally bad just coincidentally align with those actions you wouldn't like perpetrated against your person? That there's some other factor, and the two things just happen to align?

Quote:Interesting. So, you acknowledge (I think) that OMV's exist, but you object to my asking for an explanation of their source?

I object to the idea that rejecting the existence of OMV's, or even just not having a source in mind for them, is some grand challenge with chilling consequences, or that one must have an objective moral source or else just be down to "everything goes."

Quote: And are you honestly going to argue that if one group of people in one corner of the planet decide that X is acceptable, then it is FOR THEM but not FOR YOU simply because you grew up in a a different country???

No, because I don't accept the false dichotomy of "objective/anything goes." You can have a subjectively derived system that is superior to other subjectively derived, or even objectively derived, systems, for example. I don't accept that "subjectively acceptable," necessarily leads to an inability to argue against other subjectively derived systems, nor have I seen you do anything other than assume that false dichotomy in your argumentation.

Quote:Are you going to tell people from that corner who migrate to your country, "Whoops, sorry...that may have been perfectly acceptable where you came from, but now you're bound by my (technically, our) sense of morality since you crossed a line on a map"?

Subjective is not the same as arbitrary. Please stow the lazy strawmen elsewhere, if you please.

Quote:Hmmm...sounds like you actually advocate subjective morality.

No, what I'm saying is that the things you're pointing to in justification of objective morality do not imply objective morality. I am entertaining an idea, without accepting that idea as true.

Quote:I think the theist response would be that OMV's exist not because of God's opinions but because of his nature. What is called "good" not because he declares it to be so but because he is so.

But is it good because god declared his nature to be good, or because his nature reflects some external standard of goodness? If it's the former it's subjective, if it's the latter than god is irrelevant to objective moral standards, merely a mouthpiece of them, and the moral argument fails because the moral values god espouses exist independently from him. Euthyphro's Dilemma scales back infinitely.

Quote:Let me try an analogy. Suppose we envision an earthly ruler who has absolute authority over the land and people he governs. Are his opinions about what should and should not be permissable in his country considered "good" merely because he issues orders regarding various behaviors? Hardly. History is littered with the damage caused by evil tyrants. What they decreed was not good because they were not good; they were evil.

But you'd be totally okay if the tyrant said that his commands were good because they were a part of his nature, yes?

Quote:But if a god exists, then that god must a good god and not an evil god.

Again, how did you determine that? So far you've just asserted it.

Quote: And what he commands must be good because he himself is good and not evil.

How did you determine that god's nature is good and not evil, without making the circular argument of referring back to god's nature?

Quote: An evil god could not or would not create a universe like ours because the goodness we see and experience would go against his very nature. A supreme being cannot contradict himself.

And yet a good god can create a world full of evil without contradicting his nature. How completely arbitrary and self serving of you.

Quote:Now, I could be wrong cause this isn't my thing, but although the definition of "subjective" refers to personal feelings, tastes and opinions, god as theists envision him has none of these. So, he can't be subjective.

So when the bible is all like "god hates divorce," that's not god having a personal feeling regarding divorce?

Quote:As I pointed out above, this is a demand for empirical evidence. The Moral Argument is a philosophical argument, and I find it unconvincing.

A philosophical argument that makes claims about objective reality opens itself up to being tested via empirical means. It's not my problem that when your philosophical argument is tested against the real world, it fails. I'm not obligated to provide a handicap to your argument just because you'd really like it if it were valid.

And for that matter, if you want to exempt your argument from being proved wrong by empirical evidence, then you must also exempt the conclusions from being applied to the real world, since it clearly will not support them. So fine: the moral argument is totally valid... in some pretend philosophical world. But not the real one we inhabit.

Quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and say that on this point you are in error.

If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q, then not P.

Sure, but the problem is that, presented in full, I've established that the moral argument's "If P," provides an equal possibility of "then Q," and "then Not Q." The premise literally provides two mutually exclusive answers. That's the problem.

Quote:So, the Moral Argument is that the existence of objective moral values requires the existence of source (called "God"), and since our own experience tells us that OMV's are real, their source must be real, too.

The moral argument does little other than assert that baselessly, unfortunately.

Quote:Skeptics offer little in the way of a compelling alternative to that source being a supreme being.

Oh well, you know: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence....

(December 4, 2015 at 6:56 pm)wallym Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: All you have to do is ask the sentient beings on the negative side of an immoral action how they feel about it.

Murder is wrong, because it harms the well being of sentient beings. Would you rather be murdered, or continue living? If you answer like the vast majority of people would, then you have your answer. 

All you have to do to determine that slavery is wrong, is ask he slaves how they feel about it. Would you rather be enslaved, or continue to be free?

The basis of your reasoning, if I'm not mistaken, is that because I'm sentient, that makes me objectively obligated (via science, not just something you made up) to care about the preferences of every other sentient being on the planet?  That doesn't strike you as incredibly flimsy and super duper scientifically not a thing?

Interesting you went with sentience instead of species.  Got to get the moo cows under the umbrella, I guess?

You are correct. I should not have used the word "sentient".  "Consciousness" would be better. 

Just because it is objectively true, that, the things you need for your well being and ability to thrive are the same for the vast majority of humanity, does not mean you are obliged to care about them. If you do not have feelings of empathy for other humans, you are in the minority.  

Do you believe that it is objectively true that the vast majority if humans: prefer life over death, freedom over slavery, health over disease, etc?

The scientific evidence to support this, is the fact that humans are a social species that, for the majority of our existence, required: empathy, cooperation, altruism, reciprocity, in order to survive. 

You are not obliged to believe that sulfuric acid is harmful if swallowed, that doesn't change that it is objectively true that it is.

(December 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm)athrock Wrote: [


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that on this point you are in error.

If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q, then not P.

You can look this up on Google. I did.

So, the Moral Argument says that if God does not exist, then OMV's do not exist.

Or

If OMV's exist, then God exists.

Either way.

So, the Moral Argument is that the existence of objective moral values requires the existence of source (called "God"), and since our own experience tells us that OMV's are real, their source must be real, too.

Skeptics offer little in the way of a compelling alternative to that source being a supreme being.

Yes and very much no. From if P then Q, it does follow that if no Q then no P. What does not follow is if Q then P. This is because Q might have a number of different causes.

Your argument is if P does not exist than Q does not exist. P being objective morals and Q being god. That is not the same as if P then Q. Let's substitute another set of terms to see why. If no fertile women exist, no new children will exist. Therefore if there are no new children then there are no fertle women. Obviously that's wrong as not all fertile women actually have children. They could either use control, abort, or abstain from sex.

You could reformulate your argument as if Q (objective morals) then P (god). Then your logic would be sound. However I'd object to both the proposition that there are objective morals and the proposition that a god is required to create objective morals. Without both your argument fails for lack of a valid premise.

Man, do I feel stupid. I can't even begin to explain this...

A few days ago, I started this thread because I wanted to discuss the moral argument. I had been reading a bit about it and wanted to get some opinions on its weaknesses. So, the OP.

What puzzled me was all the objections to the logic rather than the premises and definitions of terms. As I said early on, the logic is valid. But only if you post the argument correctly to begin with. Which I didn't.

I kept looking at this over and over and over asking myself, "Why all this objection to the logic of an argument which is generally considered to be valid?"

I've been looking at websites about logic, reading more articles and scratching my head over this for days.

Then, today, it was as if blinders came off. I had stated premise one backwards. I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the articles and websites I had been reading previously, and damn...I had been reading one thing with my eyes, but recording something completely different in my brain. WTF! So, I just checked, and yes, I can still smell cinnamon.

Well, all I can say is: My bad, and I'm sorry for wasting some of your time.

So, after triple-checking with a half-dozen or so believer websites, I can say that the classic formulation of the Moral Argument is:

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

I think I may take the rest of the night off...and snort some more cinnamon.

(December 7, 2015 at 7:35 pm)athrock Wrote: So, after triple-checking with a half-dozen or so believer websites, I can say that the classic formulation of the Moral Argument is:

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

The problem with that argument is that it asserts by fiat that objective moral values are contingent on the existence of God.

I (and many others) disagree on that.

Why should we accept that assertion?

It still doesn't work. Even if objective moral values existed, it wouldn't mean that god existed. That assumes objective moral values come from god, which is an oxymoron. One premise is debatable, and the other premise is impossible.

(December 7, 2015 at 7:35 pm)athrock Wrote:

Man, do I feel stupid. I can't even begin to explain this...

A few days ago, I started this thread because I wanted to discuss the moral argument. I had been reading a bit about it and wanted to get some opinions on its weaknesses. So, the OP.

What puzzled me was all the objections to the logic rather than the premises and definitions of terms. As I said early on, the logic is valid. But only if you post the argument correctly to begin with. Which I didn't.

I kept looking at this over and over and over asking myself, "Why all this objection to the logic of an argument which is generally considered to be valid?"

I've been looking at websites about logic, reading more articles and scratching my head over this for days.

Then, today, it was as if blinders came off. I had stated premise one backwards. I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the articles and websites I had been reading previously, and damn...I had been reading one thing with my eyes, but recording something completely different in my brain. WTF! So, I just checked, and yes, I can still smell cinnamon.

Well, all I can say is: My bad, and I'm sorry for wasting some of your time.

So, after triple-checking with a half-dozen or so believer websites, I can say that the classic formulation of the Moral Argument is:

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

I think I may take the rest of the night off...and snort some more cinnamon.

A logical syllogism has to be both valid and sound, in order to lead to a true conclusion. 

Even if the moral agrument is valid, there are legitimate reasons to reject the premises. Thus making it unsound.

1. Morality is not objective. 
2. There may an objective morality that does not require a deity.

(December 4, 2015 at 8:30 am)athrock Wrote:

(December 3, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You'll have to start by phrasing it as a valid syllogism, because that one is something like:

If !P then !Q
P
Therefore Q

Why is that formulation necessary as opposed to the formula commonly used with this argument?

---

(December 3, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: The logic of the argument is not solid because if the three points you cited above can good enough proof of the existence of a god then I give you this:

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

This sounds good initially, but I wonder if all it does is shift the question to whether Ironman is a candidate for being god?

I think Iron man would make a good candidate for a god, but I think Odin may have an issue with that, especially since Thor is supposed to take over when Odin can no longer fullfill his role as a god. 

Yes, I know this is a serious subject, but I love being able to reference any Marvel character in posts, when it's appropriate. I'll go back to lurking now.

(December 7, 2015 at 11:25 am)athrock Wrote:

(December 7, 2015 at 3:31 am)Laika Wrote: Objective moral values do not exist. All values created by humans are subjective. Thus the argument falls apart.

So, it might be okay for one group to permit the rape of children?

If a group permitted it and had a way of explaining it to be personally good for them, then it would become moral, would it not? Hence subjective morality. I'm not interested in a fairy tale image of the world in which we say that shit like murder is objectively wrong. NOTHING is objectively wrong. Because the universe itself doesn't care one way or the other. If a man kills another man, and if another human being does not come along and add in his subjective judgment, then the killer will not face any justice. The world will not punish him. He will not burn in hell because hell itself does not exist. Karma will not come back to bit him in the ass. If he harbors no guilty conscience for his actions (believing his actions to be moral from his own subjective standpoint), the man will go about his life and die like everyone else. 

Morality itself is a man made concept. Murder, rape, stealing, and other crimes are not wrong because they are wrong. They are wrong only because we say they are, because we believe them to be. We make and change are own morals, both on a personal level and on a societal level. Civilized society has a subjective agreement that child rape is wrong, but there is no objective morality involved. 

Objective morality doesn't exist. Get over it.