(December 3, 2015 at 6:42 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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.
So, you're basically agreeing with my original post that the definitions of terms are critical to understanding whether this "proof" or argument for God is valid.
I didn't expect "morality" to be the point of contention, though. I thought the questions would arise over the word "objective".
That's an interesting twist I hadn't considered.
Using your analogy, if some Muslim thinks it is okay to cut off the heads of people they disagree with, they would be acting no differently than a Christian who bombs an abortion clinic to stop the selling of baby parts.
But wouldn't most people consider them BOTH wrong? If so, then isn't there an objective morality that is being used as a standard to measure both?