In response to your question darwinnig, that you see no reason to believe in absolute moral values, which breaks my argument somehow:
You claim that I have mastered the art of selective reading, which is ironic since if you actually read my post you would know that I never claimed that absolute moral values exist. However, your belief that they don't surely does not effect the validity of the argument. I tried to post my argument in a relatively simple If-then fashion so it could be easily followed. If one believes that absolute morality and value exist independently of human perception, then a belief in something that would correctly be termed "God" is necessary.
I did not then continue the argument and claim that "absolute morality exists". I can not make that claim, as I have no empirical evidence to either support or deny that belief. Whether or not objective morality exists does not effect the validity of the argument. I merely offered an anecdotal aside and said that it seems to me that science and humanity and experience tend to agree that things are real outside of human perception, and people then attack me for offering an opinion. My opinion and belief are wholly irrelevant to the argument.
This thread is not a proving God exists thread, why are so many here continuously asking me to show them proof, or back up my claims?
I have presented a logical argument why holding a belief in objective reality and morality necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed God.
I have made no assertion that one ought believe in objective morality.
I have made no claim that God exists.
Logically, a belief that objective reality exists then is contrary to atheism.
Therefore, it is illogical for atheists to believe in objective morality.
... still waiting for an intellectual discussion on the merits of the argument. im not even necessarily looking for an atheist to discuss with me, just someone who is intellectually honest. If you're an atheist though that is a plus since I can be confident you are not going to agree with me because you believe I'm right.
You claim that I have mastered the art of selective reading, which is ironic since if you actually read my post you would know that I never claimed that absolute moral values exist. However, your belief that they don't surely does not effect the validity of the argument. I tried to post my argument in a relatively simple If-then fashion so it could be easily followed. If one believes that absolute morality and value exist independently of human perception, then a belief in something that would correctly be termed "God" is necessary.
I did not then continue the argument and claim that "absolute morality exists". I can not make that claim, as I have no empirical evidence to either support or deny that belief. Whether or not objective morality exists does not effect the validity of the argument. I merely offered an anecdotal aside and said that it seems to me that science and humanity and experience tend to agree that things are real outside of human perception, and people then attack me for offering an opinion. My opinion and belief are wholly irrelevant to the argument.
This thread is not a proving God exists thread, why are so many here continuously asking me to show them proof, or back up my claims?
I have presented a logical argument why holding a belief in objective reality and morality necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed God.
I have made no assertion that one ought believe in objective morality.
I have made no claim that God exists.
Logically, a belief that objective reality exists then is contrary to atheism.
Therefore, it is illogical for atheists to believe in objective morality.
... still waiting for an intellectual discussion on the merits of the argument. im not even necessarily looking for an atheist to discuss with me, just someone who is intellectually honest. If you're an atheist though that is a plus since I can be confident you are not going to agree with me because you believe I'm right.
