(September 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:(September 17, 2012 at 2:47 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I made an argument that goes a long the lines of this.
(a) (Objective/real) Morality
(b) God exists
© a -> b
I argue if we know © to be true, then (a) is true.
Knowing © to be true, implies (a) to be true, and it implies (b) to true (by chain).
You've lost me with this. How can we know 'c' to be true if it requires 'a' to be true, which is actually the very thing you're trying to prove?
I think I know what you meant, but I'd like to see you explain it again for yourself, if you don't mind of course.
a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".
I further argue, that this means we know the reality of objective morality. We know it must originate from a eternal higher reality and we are to be linked to it. We know there must be eternal basis to all levels of morality. This means we have knowledge of objective morality, which only makes sense if the objective morality is true.
It's not a knock out argument, it's just something that makes intuitive sense to me.
It doesn't make sense to me, to say we know for sure morality to be true must come from God, we know this absolute fact about it, but then it may or may not exist.
However, I would say the most controversial premise in all that, is "If (objective) morality is true, then God is true".
I've made some threads why I think this is the case though.