The Moral Argument for God

[LostLocke]

While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary.

Objective.... huh?

Like, when it was OK for parents to have disobedient children stoned to death in the OT? If it's objective, then it's just as 'right' now as it was then. If God changed his mind with the times, then it's not objective.

[henryp]

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

Ignoring that, morality is not objective.

Are there any objective moral values and duties?

---

I don't see how there could be.

[henryp]

While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary.

Objective.... huh?

Like, when it was OK for parents to have disobedient children stoned to death in the OT? If it's objective, then it's just as 'right' now as it was then. If God changed his mind with the times, then it's not objective.

I'll go to bat for team theist on this one. 

If God is an all powerful being, he sets the laws for the universe.  The laws of physics would be his will.  So if he said the laws of morality were also a thing, they'd be a thing.  It'd be God's existence to define.  

Re changing his mind: It'd be sort of like releasing a patch in a video game.  Now Titans get 6 hammers instead of 5.  Maybe the number of hammers could be viewed as subjective from the point of view of the game designer, but for those playing the game, the objective truth was that you got 6 hammers.  Now it's that you get 5.

[GrandizerII]

Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

[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.

That logic is simply wrong.
The way you have written 1., you can only conclude from it that IF God exists, THEN there are objectIve morals. Not the reverse.

Are you certain of this? 

I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true. 

If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE

So, in the moral argument:

If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).

One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it. 

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.

---

Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

Where do these ideas come from?

And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?

[henryp]

Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

If you change 'good' to practical, you probably hit closer to home as to what 'morality' is.

[GrandizerII]

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

Where do these ideas come from?

And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?

Ideas come from from the human (or rather rational) mind. It's actually part of the definition of "idea".

No I wouldn't agree with them, but then again subjective morality doesn't require that I do.

[Angrboda]

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.

That logic is simply wrong.
The way you have written 1., you can only conclude from it that IF God exists, THEN there are objectIve morals. Not the reverse.

Are you certain of this? 

I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true. 

If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE

So, in the moral argument:

If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).

One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it. 

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.

You could just look up denying the antecedent and comparing it to your argument.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Wikipedia | Denying the antecedent

Your logic is wrong. The proper form of the argument is:

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist;
Objective moral values exist;
Therefore God Exists.

[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.

You should probably let other people weigh in before you declare the logic of an argument solid. Your argument actually embodies a formal fallacy: Denying the Antecedent, I'm pretty sure. At any rate:

If I am not Bill Gates, then I am not rich.
I am not Bill Gates.
Therefore, I am not rich.

See?

No, that's not right, I didn't follow your form exactly.

If not P, then not Q.
P
Therefore Q.

If I'm not rich, I don't own a helicopter.
I'm rich.
Therefore I own a helicopter.

Being rich does not require the ownership of a helicopter.

The existence of a supreme being creates the objective moral values, doesn't it? After all, a supreme being is one against which everything else is compared. And if moral values exist, then they must be compared against a fixed standard in order to be objective. 

Otherwise, it's just your preference versus mine...and that's purely subjective.

[FatAndFaithless]

Why must a god create objective moral values? Can you demonstrate that he 'must'? You should look into the Euthyphro dilemma as well.

Shortly it's: Does something become moral just because God says so, or does God say something is moral because it's moral on it's own?

If it's the former, then it's simply might makes right, divine command theory, and there's nothing 'absolute' or 'objective' about it if God can change his mind on something (which I assume he has the ability to do, being a god).

If it's the latter, then we don't need a God to 'create' morality if things are moral independently of God.