The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

[Jackalope]

You'll have to start by phrasing it as a valid syllogism, because that one is something like:

If !P then !Q
P
Therefore Q

[Joods]

The logic of the argument is not solid because if the three points you cited above can good enough proof of the existence of a god then I give you this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then ironman does not exist.
2.Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, ironman exists.

[Chad32]

The moral argument is a common one. One of the major flaws is that people think morals can come from anyone, and still be objective. If they come from god, they're subjective. That's what subjective means. If they're objective, they don't come from any one/three individual(s), and thus we don't need a god for our morals. If morals come from god, they're as subjective as anyone else's opinion of morals.

[Simon Moon]

The more standard way of stating the moral argument is:

1. If there are objective moral values then God exists.
2. There are objective moral values.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The problem with this argument is:

Depending on the definition of "moral", objective moral values may not exist. Some people seem to think it is moral to decapitate people that are not members of their religion. 

Also, there are definitions for "morality", and moral philosophies, where objective moral values may exist without a god, just not in the way theists speak of moral values. 

See: consequentialism. 

Also Sam Harris' book, The Moral Landscape. And Matt Dilahunty's lecture called "The superiority of secular morality", which can be found via google.

[Simon Moon]

The moral argument is a common one. One of the major flaws is that people think morals can come from anyone, and still be objective. If they come from god, they're subjective. That's what subjective means. If they're objective, they don't come from any one/three individual(s), and thus we don't need a god for our morals. If morals come from god, they're as subjective as anyone else's opinion of morals.

Good old Euthyphro's dilemma.

"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"

If the first horn of the dilemma is true, then the god is not the author of morality, but just the communicator of morality. And therefore, we could discover it on our own.

If the second horn is true, then morality is not objective, but subjective to the god's will. There is nothing stopping such a god from changing his mind tomorrow on what is moral and immoral. 

Some theists will state at this point, "but that would be against the god's nature".  Which does not help their argument, it only moves the problem back a step.

[brewer]

I'm a moral (subjectively) person who does not receive guidance from a fantasy delusion.

The others have debunked the argument. I don't argue with fantasy delusions.

[henryp]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

If horns do not exist, then unicorns do not exist.
Horns exist.
Therefore unicorns exist.

Ignoring that, morality is not objective.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I do not think it is a serious apologetic argument. At best it is an appeal to consequences, as in Dostoevsky's "If God does not exist then anything is permissible." If someone, an atheist perhaps, thinks that anything actually is permissible then he has no reason to look for a source of moral absolutes. The problem is when unbelievers want to have their cake and eat it too.

[thool]

OP, please explain how the first item is true. I don't see how morality hinges upon a supreme being.