The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[Edwardo Piet]

Premise 1: If objective moral values exist they can exist with or without God.
Premise 2: Belief in objective moral values without God is more parsimonious than belief in objective moral values with God.
Premise 3: There are no other rational reasons to believe in God besides objective moral values.
Premise 4: Objective moral values exist
Conclusion: Even if belief in God is rational it's even more rational to not believe in God.

Premise 2 of the Theist argument, contradicts your premise 1 above.

Uh.... duh. It's a counter argument. Of course it contradicts theirs.

They're saying 

If Not B then Not A. 
(which equals)
If A then B.

If no God then no Objective Morals 
If Objective Morals then God.

No... they're saying:

A
If not B then not A
Therefore B

Or

Objective morals exist
If objective morals do not exist then God does not exist
Therefore God exists

You're asserting
A (objective morals exist) = True  AND B (god exists) = False is possible.

Yes that's the first premise of the argument [the reformulation of it I did for RoadRunner, I mean. It seems that you're addressing that one here. In the original argument I simply said that objective moral values exist in one of the premises. In that cases it's one of the premises but not the first premise].

If you can show an example where A is True and B is false (which is what you're claiming with Premise 1), you've shown their argument to be unsound. 

I don't have to show an example. As already said there is simply no reason to believe that a God is required for objective moral values. It's their job to show that a God is required for it. Hence why one of my premises is that objective moral values can exist with or without God.

End of story. But that should be the conclusion you are working towards.  Your premises 2, 3, 4 and conclusion are unnecessary.  If you show your Premise 1 can be true, you've finished.

You don't seem to understand how arguments work. I don't need to demonstrate the premises within the argument itself... the whole point of premises is those are the things that are already assumed to be true... and the conclusion just has to follow.

If I wanted to demonstrate the premises I'd make each one a conclusion for a separate argument.
--

And nothing personal on not addressing 90% of what you say. But you are not a concise thinker or writer.  So unless I want each post to turn into 1000 page manuscripts addressing the entirety of every tangent brought up, I've got to try and steer the conversation towards what I'm trying to talk about.

Yes I am not concise but I am thorough and logical and you are neither. I am working on the conciseness as maybe it will both help you and Khem learn a thing or two about logic (or stop pretending to now know a thing or two about it)... and it will also stop me wasting my energy when you're going to miss the point anyway.

---

I never had a problem with moral values, even when I was Christian.
I saw enough of humanity in them (good and bad) to not believe ever they were objective, at least in the way theists present it.

But most of all I never saw why it was used as an argument for god, as I never understood why morals need to be objective anyway, they simply had to be agreed upon, indoctrinated, or enforced.

Exactly! Theists who love propping up the moral argument don't seem to realize that a good enough system is by definition good enough when it comes to the matter of morality. But no, they insist it has to be perfect and ultimate for morality to be a thing. Never understood such terrible logic even when I was a Christian myself.

Morality doesn't have to be objective but it certainly helps! I mean, at least it helps when we don't give into total moral relativism where people dismiss highly immoral behavior in other culures as okay because "that's their culture and we can't dismiss it any more wrong than ours." Female genital mutilation for instance: Is wrong whatever culture it's in. It does no good to say "In their culture they think it's okay therefore it's okay. Who are we to say they're wrong?". We could say the same about the Taliban denying women an education "Who are we to say that's wrong? There is no right and wrong."

Well, I think there is a right and wrong. But we certainly don't need God for it. But not only that: If objective moral values did exist in some weird platonic way outside our minds (which absolutely makes no sense to me)... it would be more likely they existed without the mind of God because of the the principle of parsimony. Weird crazy platonic moral values are more probable than weird crazy platonic moral values + God.