The Struggle to do Good

[Mr.wizard]

No not at all I said morality would be subjective if it depended on the existence of god.

This is why I have trouble taking many atheists seriously.

Your conclusion comes from either bad reasoning or intellectual dishonesty.

What you're essentially saying is one of God's properties (moral nature) is contingent upon God's existence; therefore, God's moral nature is subjective.

But that's like saying all the properties of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4 are contingent upon the existence of the mathematical equation 2 + 2 = 4; therefore, those properties must be subjective.

That's false in both instances. If the thing in question exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world, then the things properties also exist in all possible worlds, including the actual world. This means the properties of the thing in question are also objective. This is because properties are just descriptions of a thing.

You also don't seem to understand what objective means. Something is objective when its nature isn't contingent upon anything external. A thing's properties wouldn't constitute as something external, but internal (or intrinsic).

---

Please answer my question: do you need a God to stop you from murder? I don't.

If God doesn't exist, then that means your faculties and intuitions have come from an unguided and mindless natural process.

So my question to you is do you need an unguided and mindless natural process to stop you from murdering people?

Nothing wrong with my reasoning and not being dishonest at all. Your saying our morals are contingent on something external (god), by your own definition you are saying morality is subjective to whatever gods nature is. Morality being contingent on a mind whether its our mind or gods mind is by definition subjective.