RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 3, 2015 at 6:42 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 6:44 pm by Simon Moon.)
The more standard way of stating the moral argument is:
1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this argument is:
Depending on the definition of "moral", objective moral values may not exist. Some people seem to think it is moral to decapitate people that are not members of their religion.
Also, there are definitions for "morality", and moral philosophies, where objective moral values may exist without a god, just not in the way theists speak of moral values.
See: consequentialism.
Also Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape. And Matt Dilahunty's lecture called "The superiority of secular morality", which can be found via google.
1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The problem with this argument is:
Depending on the definition of "moral", objective moral values may not exist. Some people seem to think it is moral to decapitate people that are not members of their religion.
Also, there are definitions for "morality", and moral philosophies, where objective moral values may exist without a god, just not in the way theists speak of moral values.
See: consequentialism.
Also Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape. And Matt Dilahunty's lecture called "The superiority of secular morality", which can be found via google.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.