Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
At: then that means I can know them a priori (i.e. through reasoning) because they are independent of me, which means I don't need God to know them.
C: yeah, but it was God that set these morals. That means these objective morals point to a divine being.
A: but why did he choose those morals to be good and not other ones?
C: he didn't choose, it's in his nature for those morals to be the right morals according to him.
A: could his nature have been different?
C: no, he just is. He is eternal.
A: so they necessarily had to be like that and not another way?
C: yes.
A: what caused this necessity?
C: well, these morals are such that they work the best.
A: so God necessarily had to reflect these objective morals?
C: yes, it's in his nature.
A: then that means there is something apart from God that made it necessary for God to be the way he is. Just like the engine is necessary for the car to work only when I drive. There must be an external condition that gave rise to this necessity.
C: no, God is all that existed for all eternity.
A: then it can only mean these morals are arbitrary since there was no necessity, no external reason, for God to have been the way he is, but you say there was: they are the best way to live.
C: ...
A: therefore, there is something external to God where objective morals exist. This means I don't need God to know them.
C: ...
A: but, it seems like there is no way of knowing them a priori otherwise humanity would know what they are by now, therefore, objective morals must not exist, and since you claim God necessarily reflects "the best way to live" which doesn't exist, he must not exist either.
C: ...
***
Just a compressed version of a 2 hour chat I had with a Christian friend today. As we said bye, he told me he wished the conversation had been more "productive". What a subjective thing to say! It was definitely productive :p
First, I'm just nit picky, but a priori means able to reason, yes, but it specifically is talking about ontological reasoning. You don't need any sense organs to experience anything, just the ability to have rational thoughts. On contrast, a posteriori is the ability to reason if there is experience. However, you're still correct in word choice through the dialogue. And sorry for the critique!
More importantly, I think the argument is fine until this:
"then that means there is something apart from God that made it necessary for God to be the way he is."
The thing that makes him reflect the morals is also part of his nature. Part of being moral isn't just what you think, but it is about what you do about it.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
