The Moral Argument for God

[brewer]

athrock, the more you post the less open minded you appear, at least to me. Maybe I don't understand your definition of open.

[GrandizerII]

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.

There is a foundation; it's just subjectively based according to one's experiences and predispositions.

[athrock]

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).

That is correct.
But that is not what your OP says. There, it says
■
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.

Do you think the two are somehow equivalent? The one you just quoted doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists. It only gives a possible proof that God does not exist. I am confuse

Yes, I think the two forms of the argument are equivalent.

By reversing the first premise and using "not", you create the contrapositive form. At least, that's what a few websites say about the subject. Are they wrong?

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.

Where do these ideas come from?

And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?

Guys, guys, we can pack our stuff and go home. They have discovered the Hitler argument. It's over. Atheism is done for.

Hardly. However, the holocaust is a commonly-used cultural reference for something that is (almost) universally acknowledged as a *VERY BAD THING*.

Cracking a joke didn't really answer the question.

[Angrboda]

That is correct.
But that is not what your OP says. There, it says
■
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.

Do you think the two are somehow equivalent? The one you just quoted doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists. It only gives a possible proof that God does not exist. I am confuse

Yes, I think the two forms of the argument are equivalent.

By reversing the first premise and using "not", you create the contrapositive form. At least, that's what a few websites say about the subject. Are they wrong?

They aren't wrong, you're using it wrong. Note that the contrapositive of the first line is, "If God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist." Going from there and asserting the premise, "Objective moral values and duties exist," is affirming the consequent, which is the corresponding fallacy to your denying the antecedent of the contrapositive. As many have noted, you screwed it up.

[Esquilax]

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.

I'm sorry, how on earth do you think the logic of that argument is in any way solid? The first premise has an "if P, then Q" formulation without ever so much as indicating how P and Q are related; it's possible to have objective moral values without a god, and it's equally possible to have a god that doesn't provide objective moral values either. So P doesn't entail Q necessarily, nor does Q entail P without additional legwork not done in the argument. The second premise is merely a fiat assertion, and the conclusion relies upon premises that are both unjustified and, frankly, logically incoherent.

And you find all this to be solid in its construction? How is that even possible?

[Longhorn]

athrock, the more you post the less open minded you appear, at least to me. Maybe I don't understand your definition of open.

Your avatar. It made me melt inside.

/OT, sorry but it needed to be said

[athrock]

athrock, the more you post the less open minded you appear, at least to me. Maybe I don't understand your definition of open.

I can see how that might appear to be the case thus far, but that's probably a function of the responses given due to the forum I posted in.

Believe me, if I come across any stupidity posted by believers, they'll be on the receiving end, too.

---

Yes, I think the two forms of the argument are equivalent.

By reversing the first premise and using "not", you create the contrapositive form. At least, that's what a few websites say about the subject. Are they wrong?

They aren't wrong, you're using it wrong.  Note that the contrapositive of the first line is, "If God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist."  Going from there and asserting the premise, "Objective moral values and duties exist," is affirming the consequent, which is the corresponding fallacy to your denying the antecedent of the contrapositive.  As many have noted, you screwed it up.

Thanks for correcting me. I make no claims for being an trained logician. I will say, however, that if you Google the first line of the argument posted in my OP, you'll a gazillion sites.

That said, I do hope that at some point someone might entertain the idea of discussing the premises themselves:

Do objective moral values and duties exist? Why or why not?

What is the source of them?

[athrock]

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.

I'm sorry, how on earth do you think the logic of that argument is in any way solid? The first premise has an "if P, then Q" formulation without ever so much as indicating how P and Q are related; it's possible to have objective moral values without a god, and it's equally possible to have a god that doesn't provide objective moral values either. [emphasis added] So P doesn't entail Q necessarily, nor does Q entail P without additional legwork not done in the argument. The second premise is merely a fiat assertion, and the conclusion relies upon premises that are both unjustified and, frankly, logically incoherent.

And you find all this to be solid in its construction? How is that even possible?

How on earth do I think...well, the moral argument is pretty well known, it's been around for a very long time, and there are lots of websites that discuss it in great detail. 

But finally...an opportunity to get to the actual premises themselves. Thank you!

First, can you describe how it it possible to have objective moral values without a god? The challenge for the non-believing crowd, as I understand it, is that without a fixed reference point, there is no way to establish the "objective" aspect of morality; everything becomes subjective. Have a go at that (and thanks in advance, btw).

Second, it seems to me that we know that objective moral values do exist because we behave this way every day. Whenever we say, "That's not fair!", we are measuring the action in question against some standard that everyone is somehow expected to know. Even little kids on a playground recognize that when someone cuts in line to go down the slide, an injustice has been done. Where do we get these notions from?

Finally, even if, as you say, it's possible "to have a god that doesn't provide objective moral values", this fact doesn't really aid the freethinker, does it? I mean, he might argue, "I don't believe in objective moral values" but you'd counter that a god might still exist. If you're right, then the atheist can no longer use the argument that "there are no objective moral values" as justification for denying the existence of a god. Meanwhile, the believer might lose the use of this one argument but not the belief in his god. 

Who has gotten the better of that exchange?

[IATIA]

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.

(my bold)

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist. / Why? That is an opinion or assumption and by no means a valid premise.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. / Says who? Morals are subjective.

3. Therefore, God exists.  / Even if ! and 2 were valid, they do not point to this as a conclusion.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

Try some substitution:


1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then mile long cigar smoking butterflies do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, mile long cigar smoking butterflies exists.