(March 12, 2016 at 8:44 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(March 12, 2016 at 8:32 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Double implications exist.
A -> B
B -> A
Therefore A <->B.
It's not circular reasoning. It's that both imply one another.
If there existed a child, there existed a parent.
If there existed a parent, there existed a child.
That's a double implication in the definition of child and parent.
The same can be true of morality because of it's relationship to God as the source.
Okay so...if there exists objective morals, then there exists a god.
If there exists a god, then there exists objective morals.
I don't see how this is supposed to demonstrate that either God or objective morals actually exist...*scratches head*
It may or may not depending on your taste. As I've explained before in the past, the very knowledge that morality if objective (I use this differently the definition used by philosophers) is linked to God, shows we know a vital characteristic of it. Being certain in this knowledge, shows we know to be true due to the nature of (objective) morality and it's link to God. This should make us believe in both, because, we know something of certain about both that it is not really possible without some sort of link and connection to both of these as a reality.
It doesn't make sense that it's figment of our imagination, and that this thing we imagine has a necessary characteristic that it must be connected to an eternal absolute moral being.