The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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?

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Take god out of the picture for the moment...

Now, ask yourself two questions:

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

[henryp]

We want to live in the world where the holocaust is objectively wrong.  Where life has real meaning.  Where we have free will.

If you want to believe in these things, then God is decent way to go.  The problem is there is no rational reason to think our preferring the world to be a certain way would make it that way.

That's why the arguments fall apart when Theists encounter someone who doesn't believe in free will, objective morality, or meaning.  

Because you're presenting two possible realities.  One supported by reason that we REALLY REALLY REALLY don't like.  And one that you REALLY REALLY like, but you have to jump through some hoops, and believe in some weird things to sort of justify if you don't think about it too hard.

And the strength of the argument is hoping people find the reason'd reality so bad they refuse to accept it.  The obvious flaw being truth not needing acceptance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Whenever we find that someone's "argument for god" happens to be an argument about anything but god, say...instead, objective moral values and duties.....we should already know what sort of miserable little charade is about to play out.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

First of all prove that your second premise is correct.

Second given your first two premises, the third doesn't follow. You have not even listed that god is necessary for the existence of objective morality in your establishing premesis, just said that he doesn't exist if objective morality doesn't exist (which is also something you'd be better off proving before getting back to us).

To use pizzas and tomato sauce here is what you've said in more mundane terms:

1) If tomato sauce didn't exist neither would pizzas
2) I like eating tomato sauce
3) Pizzas exist.

See how 1 and 2 don't lead to 3? Same with you.

[Jackalope]

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?

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), that still does not make objective moral values contingent on the existence of God. Do you understand what contingency in formal logic entails? It literally means that P absolute prerequisite for Q, Q cannot occur in the absence of P, P is a necessary precondition for Q, not that anyone (or even everyone) thinks it's the most reasonable conclusion. This is something that must be demonstrated - that Q can only come about in conjunction with P. If there ain't no P, there ain't no Q.

The syllogism also asserts that objective moral values exist - while it may be true that they do, I am skeptical and you're going to have to show your work on that. I have yet to see a compelling case. (my interpretation is that "objective" means "extant independent of personal feeling or prejudice, existing independent of mind")

[Pat Mustard]

I tend to think there is objective but not universal morality, although the larger portion of morality is culturally and personally subjective and a fair amount is arbitrary, I don't think we can construct a scenario where it is morally okay to use human infants as hockey pucks for fun. 

Certainly not.  That would just be wasteful when you consider how tasty they can be.

I think you're thinking 'bout California Cheeseburgers.

Edit: Replying to Roadrunner below

Bull shit! Absolute and utter garbage.

Lets take a look:

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
   

1) Why can't we, just because you can accept that other people with a different morality than you could be right, or that morality can be dependant on context doesn't preclude you from describing a wrong act as wrong.
2) The problem of evil is only a problem for monotheists, where their god has to be both the absolute good and the source of all evil. Not a problem for relativists.
3) See 1. The same issue arises
4) Again see 1.
5) Of course we can. We improve our morality much more readily than absolutists because we can acknowledge that others can have a more refined morality and learn from them than absolutists can. For absolutists their morality is already perfect and they cannot learn from others.
6) What is this I don't even. Look you're just getting into fractally wrong territory here. Claiming that moral relativists cannot have a meaningful discussion on morality is like claiming that astrophysicists can't explain the Doppler shift.
7) Hey, I'll just finish off by copying your usage of non-sequitur. Moral Absolutists cannot hook other players.

[Pat Mustard]

Bull shit! Absolute and utter garbage.

Lets take a look:

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
   

1) Why can't we, just because you can accept that other people with a different morality than you could be right, or that morality can be dependant on context doesn't preclude you from describing a wrong act as wrong.
2) The problem of evil is only a problem for monotheists, where their god has to be both the absolute good and the source of all evil. Not a problem for relativists.
3) See 1. The same issue arises
4) Again see 1.
5) Of course we can. We improve our morality much more readily than absolutists because we can acknowledge that others can have a more refined morality and learn from them than absolutists can. For absolutists their morality is already perfect and they cannot learn from others.
6) What is this I don't even. Look you're just getting into fractally wrong territory here. Claiming that moral relativists cannot have a meaningful discussion on morality is like claiming that astrophysicists can't explain the Doppler shift.
7) Hey, I'll just finish off by copying your usage of non-sequitur. Moral Absolutists cannot hook other players.

[athrock]

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), that still does not make objective moral values contingent on the existence of God.  Do you understand what contingency in formal logic entails?  It literally means that P absolute prerequisite for Q, Q cannot occur in the absence of P, P is a necessary precondition for Q, not that anyone (or even everyone) thinks it's the most reasonable conclusion.  This is something that must be demonstrated - that Q can only come about in conjunction with P.  If there ain't no P, there ain't no Q.

The syllogism also asserts that objective moral values exist - while it may be true that they do, I am skeptical and you're going to have to show your work on that.  I have yet to see a compelling case.  (my interpretation is that "objective" means "extant independent of personal feeling or prejudice, existing independent of mind")

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of contingency. The Moral Argument would be meaningless if Q did NOT require P. Otherwise, what's the point? 

But, let's start with the latter...

Concerning whether OMV's exist, you say, "it may be true that they do [exist]". It will be helpful to know for sure what your position is. You're "skeptical"? As in doubtful?

Okay...definitions are important in a discussion like this, so can we agree that objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. And can we further agree that an "objective" moral value is one that is true in all places for all people at all times?

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

Thanks.

---

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.

First of all prove that your second premise is correct.

Second given your first two premises, the third doesn't follow. You have not even listed that god is necessary for the existence of objective morality in your establishing premesis, just said that he doesn't exist if objective morality doesn't exist (which is also something you'd be better off proving before getting back to us).

To use pizzas and tomato sauce here is what you've said in more mundane terms:

1) If tomato sauce didn't exist neither would pizzas
2) I like eating tomato sauce
3) Pizzas exist.

See how 1 and 2 don't lead to 3? Same with you.

I'm starting with premise two as you can see from my post to Cthulhu Dreaming above. Feel free to join in.

---

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.

I see.

And just to be clear, if the Nazis had won the war, killing six million Jews and a couple million other folks would be okay in your view because might makes right? Correct?

This explains Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes, does it not?

[IATIA]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

1. child abuse
   
2. terrorism
   
3. racial discrimination
   
4. rape
   
5. murder (not merely "killing")
   

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

(my numbers)

1. How were children treated before child labor laws. And what of other countries that do not have child labor laws?
   
2. Terrorism was acceptable to the union when they were fighting England.
   
3. The bible condones racial discrimination and then there is slavery at which time Blacks were not even considered human.
   
4. The bible condones rape
   
5. War is murder
   

(not merely "killing")

See, rationalizing already. If we change the meaning then it is all ok. That is how it works.

[brewer]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

Child Abuse: Deuteronomy 21: 18-21, Proverbs 30:17, Psalm 137:9
Rape: Numbers 31:15-18
Terrorism: Deuteronomy 2:25
Genocide (murder): Deuteronomy 2:34
Discrimination: Leviticus 21:17-23

There are more. Sounds like they were acceptable and condoned.