The moral argument, for atheism!

[Magilla]

Major Premise:  If an objective moral lawgiver ("God") exists who is the source of objective morality, then God must be morally good.

Minor Premise:  If a moral, infinite being exists, then such a being has moral obligations, namely, to reveal, unambiguously, objective moral truths to Us, His Creation.

Conclusion:  Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, god does not exist.

Both premises are true.  The problem no matter how clear the clarification, how manifest and good in reasoning God's words, if we are in error, and refuse to acknowledge proofs in that we are in a very bad way of thinking and going about life, then the problem is us.
. . .

If this god is omniscient, then it would know that atheists will either:
• be in error;
or
• refuse to acknowledge.
Further, it would know ahead of time which individuals would fail to be con-
vinced. This is assuming that your statement above is true, MysticKnight.

Refusal to acknowledge implies that some of us actually know that
there is a god, but deny it. Maybe, maybe not, but those of us who
claim to not believe, ought to be given the courtesy of having our
expressed position accepted as genuine.

This god, that would be doing what it  knows to be ineffective, ( at
least with the humans who are atheist). What kind of wisdom is there in
an all seeing - all knowing - all powerful* god , who would try
to influence people by means and methods that it knows will not work?
It certainly doesn't seem 'all wise' to me !

On the other hand, an all seeing - all knowing - all powerful*
god would know what it would take to convince us, whilst at the same
time not breaking our supposed free will, (if indeed we have it).

It would simply be a matter of providing convincing evidence or arguments
to us, whilst on the other hand, not forcing or obliging us.

Some people do get convinced, so the god I describe would know that
convincing is possible, (without force or obligation). The god would have
the knowledge of what it would take to convince the atheist, and again plenty
of atheists have been won over, so the god knows its possible, and must
know what it would take in the case of each and every, (rational) individual.

So the problem is not with us, it is with the god. I must conclude that the god is either:

• not all seeing - all knowing - all powerful*;
or
• that it is but just does not care to do what it takes to be convincing;
or
• it likes to keep some of us 'in the dark' for a while.

But that does not cover those of us who will, (and others who have in the past), died as atheists.
It seems like a pretty good ploy, by theists, if we are supposed to be convinced of a non-existent
god, to blame us finite and unwise humans, and not the god, for its failure to convince us.
__________________________________________________

* = I exclude abilities which fall in the scope of logical impossibility.
__________________________________________________

Magilla.