The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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?

---

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?

The point (I think) of premise two is that we need an objective way to determine right and wrong; otherwise, what you think is right is right for you but maybe not for me. That's subjective morality. But if it is agreed that OBJECTIVE moral values do exist, then we must determine how we know that. Something or some action is good or evil relative to what?

That fixed point of reference is Ironman (or God).

Or so the argument goes. 

[Whateverist]

Or so the argument goes wrong. 

Fixed that for you.

[Alex K]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

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.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

That logic is simply wrong.
The way you have written 1., you can only conclude from it that IF God exists, THEN there are objectIve morals. Not the reverse.

[Ben Davis]

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.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

Hi athrock, from the UK

First I'll echo Simon's point that you should phrase your first premise as an imperative not a negative: 'If objective moral values & duties exist then God exists'. The reason for that phraseology is it makes your base, unstated assumptions clear: 1. Objective moral values & duties exist, 2. God = objective moral values & duties. There are a number of problems with this.

1. You must be able to demonstrate that objective moral values & duties exist.
2. You must be able to demonstrate that God exists
3. You must be able to demonstrate that God and 'objective moral values & duties' are the same thing (or part of the same thing).

None of these things are demonstrable consequently the argument must be dismissed:

1. All moral values & duties that currently exist are demonstrably subjective. Or best knowledge indicates that morals can only arise from subjects applying value-systems to specific circumstances, in context.
2. I don't think I need to expand much on the size of this task!
3. A 'being' and a 'concept' cannot be the same thing, by definition. Consequently, the best that can be argued here is that God is the 'arbiter' of 'objective morals' however that makes them subjective, by definition as God becomes a subject making an arbitration.

Hope that helps.

[Longhorn]

1 I have no idea what I'm doing
2 syllogisms look nice
3 you can't reason something into existence but I'll try
4 whoop-de-doop-de-doop
5 there, I made god. Ay-men.

REPENT BITCHES

[Alex K]

Vic has a point, in that most arguments you see that involve numbered steps or propositions, are just attempts to package trivialities or ill defined notions into a more impressive format to give them a superficial air of rigorosity and integrity. An internet apologists' favourite for that reason. Written out in a proper sentence, they often are obvious or obvious nonsense. For example, the one in the OP is so simplistic that numbered steps are total overkill. A simple sentence would suffice, but then it would have been immediately obvious that it involves a wrong step.

The ontological argument comes to mind as a famous example, where imnsho the steps are used to hide changes in meaning of certain words.

[dyresand]

If our morals came from god well.....

[Chad32]

If our morals came from god well.....

No wonder we're so violent.

[dyresand]

If our morals came from god well.....

No wonder we're so violent.

Exactly   

We must get our compassion from satan

[athrock]

The moral argument is a common one. One of the major flaws is that people think morals can come from anyone, and still be objective. If they come from god, they're subjective. That's what subjective means. If they're objective, they don't come from any one/three individual(s), and thus we don't need a god for our morals. If morals come from god, they're as subjective as anyone else's opinion of morals.

I'm not so sure this is correct. Let me play angel's advocate for a moment...

The question is not WHERE the standard of morality comes from but whether such a standard applies to all people at all times.

SUBJECTIVE morality is that which may be true for you but not for me or true at one point in time but not another.

OBJECTIVE morality is that which is true always and everywhere.

So, if a supreme being is the standard by which we measure (and derive?) morality, then that morality is still objective in that it applies equally to everyone everywhere - regardless of the source.

Here's an analogy: the measure of a portrait painted by an artist is how closely the completed work resembles the person portrayed. If it is does capture the appearance well, we say that the portrait is a "good" likeness. Otherwise, we question the skill of the artist (impressionists and Picasso notwithstanding). But the measure of the portrait is the actual person being painted. Now, imagine a room full of art students all painting the same model who is posed in the center of the studio. The students may capture the model's features with varying degrees of accuracy and skill, and we would judge that painting to be the best which most closely resembles the model in real life.

Similarly, it seems to me that when we measure whether an act is good or evil, we do so against an absolute standard of right and wrong that does not depend upon cultural differences or personal preferences. And we make our judgments regarding good and evil, right and wrong, against an absolute standard. 

That which is the highest good is what theists call "God".

If God does not exist, then what is the basis for objective morality? Or does it even exist?