RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 7, 2015 at 3:25 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2015 at 3:26 pm by IATIA.)
(December 7, 2015 at 2:19 pm)athrock Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that on this point you are in error.
If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q, then not P.
You can look this up on Google. I did.
So, the Moral Argument says that if God does not exist, then OMV's do not exist.
Or
If OMV's exist, then God exists.
Either way.
So, the Moral Argument is that the existence of objective moral values requires the existence of source (called "God"), and since our own experience tells us that OMV's are real, their source must be real, too.
Skeptics offer little in the way of a compelling alternative to that source being a supreme being.
Google all you want, the logic is still wrong and you apparently (I would say obviously, but that may not be so, as you may just be a Troll and truly know better.) learned nothing. Both your premises are still opinions with no supporting evidence and the conclusion does not follow from your two premises even if they were valid.
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
