RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 9, 2015 at 5:41 pm
(This post was last modified: December 9, 2015 at 5:43 pm by Jackalope.)
(December 9, 2015 at 10:57 am)athrock Wrote:(December 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The problem with that argument is that it asserts by fiat that objective moral values are contingent on the existence of God.
I (and many others) disagree on that.
Why should we accept that assertion?
Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.
Even if that were true (and I doubt that it is), that still does not make objective moral values contingent on the existence of God. Do you understand what contingency in formal logic entails? It literally means that P absolute prerequisite for Q, Q cannot occur in the absence of P, P is a necessary precondition for Q, not that anyone (or even everyone) thinks it's the most reasonable conclusion. This is something that must be demonstrated - that Q can only come about in conjunction with P. If there ain't no P, there ain't no Q.
The syllogism also asserts that objective moral values exist - while it may be true that they do, I am skeptical and you're going to have to show your work on that. I have yet to see a compelling case. (my interpretation is that "objective" means "extant independent of personal feeling or prejudice, existing independent of mind")