The Moral Argument for God

[Jenny A]

[


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.

Yes and very much no. From if P then Q, it does follow that if no Q then no P. What does not follow is if Q then P. This is because Q might have a number of different causes.

Your argument is if P does not exist than Q does not exist. P being objective morals and Q being god. That is not the same as if P then Q. Let's substitute another set of terms to see why. If no fertile women exist, no new children will exist. Therefore if there are no new children then there are no fertle women. Obviously that's wrong as not all fertile women actually have children. They could either use control, abort, or abstain from sex.

You could reformulate your argument as if Q (objective morals) then P (god). Then your logic would be sound. However I'd object to both the proposition that there are objective morals and the proposition that a god is required to create objective morals. Without both your argument fails for lack of a valid premise.