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.