(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.
(my bold)
1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist. / Why? That is an opinion or assumption and by no means a valid premise.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. / Says who? Morals are subjective.
3. Therefore, God exists. / Even if ! and 2 were valid, they do not point to this as a conclusion.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
