RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 7, 2015 at 10:04 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2015 at 10:05 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 7, 2015 at 7:35 pm)athrock Wrote:
Man, do I feel stupid. I can't even begin to explain this...
A few days ago, I started this thread because I wanted to discuss the moral argument. I had been reading a bit about it and wanted to get some opinions on its weaknesses. So, the OP.
What puzzled me was all the objections to the logic rather than the premises and definitions of terms. As I said early on, the logic is valid. But only if you post the argument correctly to begin with. Which I didn't.
I kept looking at this over and over and over asking myself, "Why all this objection to the logic of an argument which is generally considered to be valid?"
I've been looking at websites about logic, reading more articles and scratching my head over this for days.
Then, today, it was as if blinders came off. I had stated premise one backwards. I couldn't believe it, so I went back to the articles and websites I had been reading previously, and damn...I had been reading one thing with my eyes, but recording something completely different in my brain. WTF! So, I just checked, and yes, I can still smell cinnamon.
Well, all I can say is: My bad, and I'm sorry for wasting some of your time.
So, after triple-checking with a half-dozen or so believer websites, I can say that the classic formulation of the Moral Argument is:
I think I may take the rest of the night off...and snort some more cinnamon.
- If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- But objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
A logical syllogism has to be both valid and sound, in order to lead to a true conclusion.
Even if the moral agrument is valid, there are legitimate reasons to reject the premises. Thus making it unsound.
1. Morality is not objective.
2. There may an objective morality that does not require a deity.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.