The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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.

It appears that we do.

Where do they come from?

---

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.

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.

You could just look up denying the antecedent and comparing it to your argument.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:

   If P, then Q.
   Not P.
   Therefore, not Q.

Wikipedia | Denying the antecedent

Your logic is wrong.  The proper form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
Objective moral values exist;
Therefore God Exists.

The two forms of the argument are equivalent. I didn't expect all this focus on the logic, so I've been forced to do some homework. Here is the full form of the version I posted in the OP:

1. If not Q, then not P.
2. Q.
3. Not not Q.
4. Therefore, not not P.
5. Therefore, P.

The argument is logically valid. Therefore, we ought to focus our discussion on the two premises:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Another poster, Irrational, seems to be committed to the proposition that objective moral values do not exist...anyone else? And if so, why?

Or is Irrational wrong? Again, why?

---

Why must a god create objective moral values?  Can you demonstrate that he 'must'?  You should look into the Euthyphro dilemma as well.  

Shortly it's:  Does something become moral just because God says so, or does God say something is moral because it's moral on it's own?  

If it's the former, then it's simply might makes right, divine command theory, and there's nothing 'absolute' or 'objective' about it if God can change his mind on something (which I assume he has the ability to do, being a god).

If it's the latter, then we don't need a God to 'create' morality if things are moral independently of God.

I have already given the common theist response to the dilemma.

Shortly it's: God IS good by nature; therefore, whatever He commands or does IS good.

To speak of God as "not good" is meaningless because goodness is an essential part of his character. If he were not good, then he would not be God.

---

The problem with some vague abstract deity is just that. It's vague and abstract. I don't see how any individual can go through life without screwing up sometimes, so my argument against yahweh likely pertains to everyone else. Just not in specific actions.

Yes something can be good for one, and not good for another.

Oxycontin can be good for one (a cancer patient, for example), but not for another (an addict).

But if your neighbor's son is molesting his own sisters, you're good with that?

You're gonna say no which means that we have agreed on the existence of at least one objective moral value. Others could be listed quickly.

So please explain how it can be true IN EVERY CASE that "something can be good for one, and not good for another."

---

So, if the man living next door to you decides that an honor killing is necessary because his teenage daughter walked out to the mailbox without a male escort and without wearing her burqa, are you gonna respect his culture "no matter what"?

You didn't read what I said in the quote, did you?

I did, but I must not have understood what you wrote.