Suffering

[Mystic]

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).

Your logic failure here is that knowing © to be true doesn't mean (a) is true. We can declare © to be true, but declaring it true does not make objective morality exist.

For a "reducto ad absurdum" example;
I can conclude that having an 8 foot long penis would make walking around quite difficult. If we go by the logic in your post, it would mean I had an 8 foot long penis.

I'm not arguing universals, I'm arguing a particular thing (morality).

---

A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.

Yep, I agree. But in your post that I quoted originally you start your chain of thought by saying 'if we know A->B to be true, then...' but my question is how can we conclude that without proving A?

Oh ok. I see what happened. I'm not saying [ A -> B] -> A as a universal. I'm arguing in particular with morality, it doesn't make sense we know for sure it must come from God, but then it doesn't exist.

---

Here I will make the argument clearer:

"If is the case that we know objective morality must come from God, then objective morality exists."

That is what I'm arguing. I stated why I feel this is the case.