RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 7, 2015 at 11:25 am
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2015 at 11:30 am by athrock.)
(December 7, 2015 at 1:42 am)Wyrd of Gawd 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...Try some substitution:
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.
1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then mile long cigar smoking butterflies do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, mile long cigar smoking butterflies exists.
The problem lies with your first premise.
(December 7, 2015 at 3:31 am)Laika 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.
Objective moral values do not exist. All values created by humans are subjective. Thus the argument falls apart.
So, it might be okay for one group to permit the rape of children?
(December 7, 2015 at 7:45 am)Ben Davis Wrote:(December 6, 2015 at 9:25 pm)athrock Wrote: But finally...an opportunity to get to the actual premises themselves. Thank you!
Did you not see my post? :'(
Ah, #14. We're getting to your points now, I think.