RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 1:07 pm by athrock.)
(December 4, 2015 at 9:22 am)Quantum Wrote:(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.
Are you certain of this?
I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true.
If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE
So, in the moral argument:
If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).
One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it.
Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.
(December 5, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Irrational Wrote:(December 5, 2015 at 12:00 pm)athrock Wrote: Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.
No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.
Where do these ideas come from?
And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?