The Moral Argument for God

[Natachan]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

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.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

Hey, so I thought I'd take a wack and give you my thoughts.

While the soundness of your argument here is fine in form, I hesitate to say that it is "sound." The first premise claims that "If objective moral valued do not exist, then God does not exist." Well, maybe objective moral values don't exist. You went on to point to a few actions and asked if they would ever be considered moral in order to justify your premise that objective morals and values do exist. I tend to think this is a misunderstanding of what morality is. Morality is a set of rules of thumb that we as humans (and other social species) have come up with to guide our actions. "Good" and "evil" are simply labels that we put on things that produce certain outcomes or that comply with a certain set of value judgements. Notice I said "value" which implies that there must be someone to do the valuing. As such the idea of "objective" morals which exist independent of any mind stops making any sense. If there is no one to do the valuing, there are no values and no good or evil.

Of course, you could concede that this might be true, but it is God that does the valuing. But that isn't objective morality, it's arbitrary.  Let's say (just hypothetically) that your arbiter of morality says that wearing cotton poly blend clothing is immoral. Does that make it so? Why? Many try to get around this by defining morality as acting in accordance with God's will, but I don't buy that definition.  It removes the moral agency of each individual. If you are simply acting on orders you are not moral or immoral, you are amoral.  If you want to define morality this way, fine, but we have to end the discussion there because we are unable to move forward because that isn't the definition that most people use.

But let's assume that we are all operating under a definition of morality that runs something like "the evaluation and guiding of actions that are promoting harmony and happiness and lessening discord in accordance with one's values" or something along those lines. What would indicate that God is the origin of those values or of morality in general? Even if we can all agree that objective morals do exist (and there are atheists who do hold this position) that does not automatically mean that a God is behind that. There are some that give secular origins of objective morality.

And finally there is still the problem that a definition of God is not given. Before we can even begin discussing its possible existence we have to define what it is that we are talking about. I could just as well claim that flibbityjibbet is the source of all morality, and the form of the argument would stay the same, and it would retain just as much meaning. What is this God? What positive evidence can you give for its existence? What are its attributes and abilities? How would we tell a universe that did not have a god from one that did?