RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 4, 2015 at 9:22 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 9:23 am by Alex K.)
(December 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm)athrock Wrote: 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.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition