The Moral Argument for God

[Mister Agenda]

I agree with the comment about denying the antecedent.  Even then, I think that this argument is more properly applied against materialism, than for God.  While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary.   I think a better syllogism is 1) If materialism is true, then objective moral values do not exist.  2) Objective moral values exist  C)  Therefore materialism is not true.

I did recently see an interesting article concerning this subject.   Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist

[ul]
[li]Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance [/li]
[/ul]

The problem is that both 1 and 2 are at issue, and themselves need to be proved.

I'm going to read that article, but before it depresses me, do you need an absolute standard of length to tell one thing is longer than another? There are different kinds of moral relativism, those statements logically apply to normative moral relativism, but not to descriptive moral relativism.