The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

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")

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of contingency. The Moral Argument would be meaningless if Q did NOT require P. Otherwise, what's the point? 

But, let's start with the latter...

Concerning whether OMV's exist, you say, "it may be true that they do [exist]". It will be helpful to know for sure what your position is. You're "skeptical"? As in doubtful?

Okay...definitions are important in a discussion like this, so can we agree that objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. And can we further agree that an "objective" moral value is one that is true in all places for all people at all times?

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable.

Thanks.

---

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

First of all prove that your second premise is correct.

Second given your first two premises, the third doesn't follow. You have not even listed that god is necessary for the existence of objective morality in your establishing premesis, just said that he doesn't exist if objective morality doesn't exist (which is also something you'd be better off proving before getting back to us).

To use pizzas and tomato sauce here is what you've said in more mundane terms:

1) If tomato sauce didn't exist neither would pizzas
2) I like eating tomato sauce
3) Pizzas exist.

See how 1 and 2 don't lead to 3? Same with you.

I'm starting with premise two as you can see from my post to Cthulhu Dreaming above. Feel free to join in.

---

So, it might be okay for one group to permit the rape of children?

If a group permitted it and had a way of explaining it to be personally good for them, then it would become moral, would it not? Hence subjective morality. I'm not interested in a fairy tale image of the world in which we say that shit like murder is objectively wrong. NOTHING is objectively wrong. Because the universe itself doesn't care one way or the other. If a man kills another man, and if another human being does not come along and add in his subjective judgment, then the killer will not face any justice. The world will not punish him. He will not burn in hell because hell itself does not exist. Karma will not come back to bit him in the ass. If he harbors no guilty conscience for his actions (believing his actions to be moral from his own subjective standpoint), the man will go about his life and die like everyone else. 

Morality itself is a man made concept. Murder, rape, stealing, and other crimes are not wrong because they are wrong. They are wrong only because we say they are, because we believe them to be. We make and change are own morals, both on a personal level and on a societal level. Civilized society has a subjective agreement that child rape is wrong, but there is no objective morality involved. 

Objective morality doesn't exist. Get over it.

I see.

And just to be clear, if the Nazis had won the war, killing six million Jews and a couple million other folks would be okay in your view because might makes right? Correct?

This explains Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes, does it not?