RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 6, 2015 at 8:13 pm
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2015 at 8:41 pm by athrock.)
(December 6, 2015 at 12:55 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: athrock, the more you post the less open minded you appear, at least to me. Maybe I don't understand your definition of open.
I can see how that might appear to be the case thus far, but that's probably a function of the responses given due to the forum I posted in.
Believe me, if I come across any stupidity posted by believers, they'll be on the receiving end, too.
(December 6, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(December 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm)athrock Wrote: Yes, I think the two forms of the argument are equivalent.
By reversing the first premise and using "not", you create the contrapositive form. At least, that's what a few websites say about the subject. Are they wrong?
They aren't wrong, you're using it wrong. Note that the contrapositive of the first line is, "If God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist." Going from there and asserting the premise, "Objective moral values and duties exist," is affirming the consequent, which is the corresponding fallacy to your denying the antecedent of the contrapositive. As many have noted, you screwed it up.
Thanks for correcting me. I make no claims for being an trained logician. I will say, however, that if you Google the first line of the argument posted in my OP, you'll a gazillion sites.
That said, I do hope that at some point someone might entertain the idea of discussing the premises themselves:
Do objective moral values and duties exist? Why or why not?
What is the source of them?