Conversion

[Tiberius]

The TAG does not state that God created morality. You have no reason to be confused about it; you just stated that TAG did state this, and now you are saying vaguely that "either it did, or it didn't, in either case, it's invalid because it's not an evidential argument."

The only reason I was confused was because to me saying God is the "source" of morality (which the argument does) is a statement of creation. You said it wasn't, but that morality was some kind of transcendent thing of God. I pointed out that either way, these things are not provable and are mere assumptions, yet the argument tries to prove that without God, none of these things could exist.

It's making an assumption and then trying to say that the assumption is true without giving any argument to back it up.

But that was the case from the beginning. The argument could not be an evidential argument, because it starts by presuming a worldview of Christian orthodoxy, in the sense of foundational belief, and compares it to a worldview of atheism, which does not affirm a foundational belief in Christian orthodoxy. That does not "null" the argument, it means the argument is analytic, not evidential. That an argument is analytic, not evidential, does not null an argument, anymore than it nulls an argument that it is evidential, not analytic. And if it did, you would have provide rational reasons to say that it does, beyond the mere reassertion that "it does".

Pray tell me, what then is the point of this argument? If it does nothing to prove or support the existence of God, and is merely analytical, why is it so important?

That is a red herring/straw man, since those are not the worldviews the argument does analyse, and certainly not real worldviews to begin with. You are using this as an excuse to ignore the analysis of the argument of the viewpoints it does analyse, since any other viewpoints are irrelevant to the analytic conclusions about the epistemic structures that it actually does analyse.

No, it's a comparison. Your argument states that God is the source of morality without giving evidence or even any reasoning to back the claim up. My point was that the same argument could be made by simply substituting FSMism (which could arguably be a worldview btw) or Islam, or Hinduism. What I fail to see is why the argument concludes a Christian God over any other form, when all it does it make assumptions.

The argument is rather that if the logical order of the universe doesn't transcend human minds, and it is not an objective conceptual reality independent of human minds, then it is not possible to say that it does not, and perfectly reasonable to say that it does, since to say the opposite would be invoking the law of contradiction which is self-refuting after the fact of the objective non-reality of this law.

Aren't those two requirements both assumptions though? Thus all you have done is focus on one possible scenario and ignore the others. I still don't see how you can get from that kind of argument to "God exists", let alone "God exists and he is Yahweh".