(September 18, 2012 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(September 18, 2012 at 1:51 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: But this is circular, which is what I was getting at originally. "If objective morality exists, then God exists, which would then prove 'a'; that objective morality exists". This is what you have said in terms of 'a', 'b' and 'c' but I've written it out in English.
A->B Doesn't usually say anything about whether A is true. However, in this case, I would say with morality, it does show it to be true for certain reasons.
However it doesn't really prove A to be true unless you accept both: A -> B to true. And [A -> B] ->A to be true
I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.
Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
