Suffering

[genkaus]

a -> b is "If (objective) morality exists, then God exists".

In logic, that's called a non-sequitur.

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.

Actually, it's not an argument at all. Objective morality means "morality independent of anyone's thoughts, whims or opinions and based on facts of reality". There is no call for any "higher" reality - this one should suffice. There is no need for an eternal basis. Morality which is based on this reality - and changes according to this reality - would be objective as well.

You shouldn't rely too much on your intuition. Especially when it can be shown to be so dead wrong.

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.

Who says that?

However, I would say the most controversial premise in all that, is "If (objective) morality is true, then God is true".

Controversial? I don't think so. Nonsensical is more like it.

I've made some threads why I think this is the case though.

And you've been shown to be wrong in all them. And yet, you continue to do so. I wonder why that is?