The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[henryp]

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

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

But that's the end.  Once you show one of their premises isn't true, it's over.  That's how logic works. 

If I say All cats are white.  And you show me a brown cat.  Ta da!  My logic is shit.  You win the day.

When theists say "If Objective Morals Exist, then God Exists."  And you go "Objective morals can exist without God."  If that's true, you don't need to say anything more.  The only thing left to 'argue' is whether or not your statement is true or not.

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  If A then B is the exact same as If not B then not A.  You can say it either way.  If A then B just goes better with how you wrote your first (new version) premise.
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].

Right.  I was talking about the RR one which was much clearer.  

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.

Demonstrating that a premise is false is typically how it works.  It's hard to do here, so It's fine to just say "DISAGREE!"  But they will say "I DISAGREE WITH YOUR DISAGREEMENT!"  And nobody has shown anything.  You've just changed the argument from us "God exists True?" to: is "If Objective Morals then God true?"

But again.  That's the end.  If you say "Objective morals can get exist without God", your work is done.  You don't need to say anything else.  That statement does the trick.

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.

Usually, logical arguments are used to prove an opposing premise is false.  

I say 'if it has wings, it can fly.'    You can certainly say "Some things with wings can't fly."  Everything I've learned about this sort of thing says that "Some things with wings can't fly" is what you'd want to conclude to prove logically I am wrong.  So you'd say Penguins have wings.  Penguins can't fly.  Therefore Some things with wings can't fly is true which proves  "If it has wings, it can fly" is false.  And that's logic.


With
Objective Morals exist
If Objective Morals Exist then God Exists
Therefore God Exists.

If you're fine with just stating a premise, you can also just say "Objective morals don't exist."  That does the trick.  You can say "Objective morals can exist without God."  That works.  You can say "God doesn't exist."  If you think you just stating something true is enough, you could do any of those 3.  

But if you're just going to state the opposite, there's no reason to bring logic into it.  They present an argument that concludes God exists.  You can always just say "God doesn't exist."  It's not particularly compelling, but if true, it breaks their logic.

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 know you don't believe me.  It'd be a real eye opener for you if you found some sort of 'logic' forum, and presented this to them and asked if what you're doing makes any sense.  It's pretty bad.  It's like someone impersonating what they think logical arguments are based on reading Mystic Knight posts.  

You've said in the past you don't have any symbolic logic background.  Consider for a moment that maybe you're doing something wrong.