The Moral Argument for God

[Vincent]

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.

Objective moral values do not exist. All values created by humans are subjective. Thus the argument falls apart.

[Ben Davis]

But finally...an opportunity to get to the actual premises themselves. Thank you!

Did you not see my post? :'(

[Nay_Sayer]

FSM has assured me. Objective morality does not exist, We can all move now and go back to worshiping his noodliness

[TheRocketSurgeon]

R'Amen.

[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.

Try some substitution:


1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then mile long cigar smoking butterflies do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, mile long cigar smoking butterflies exists.

The problem lies with your first premise.

---

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.

Objective moral values do not exist. All values created by humans are subjective. Thus the argument falls apart.

So, it might be okay for one group to permit the rape of children?

---

But finally...an opportunity to get to the actual premises themselves. Thank you!

Did you not see my post? :'(

Ah, #14. We're getting to your points now, I think.

[IATIA]

Try some substitution:


1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then mile long cigar smoking butterflies do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, mile long cigar smoking butterflies exists.

The problem lies with your first premise.

Exactly the same as yours.

[GrandizerII]

Objective moral values do not exist. All values created by humans are subjective. Thus the argument falls apart.

So, it might be okay for one group to permit the rape of children?

You keep regurgitating the same objections even when they have repeatedly been addressed and answered. At least answer the responses made to those objections. I personally told you subjective morality does not demand that we all unconditionally and completely agree with each other's moral standards. I have not seen you answer this yet by me or anyone here who has made a similar response.

[Mister Agenda]

All you have to do is ask the sentient beings on the negative side of an immoral action how they feel about it.

Murder is wrong, because it harms the well being of sentient beings. Would you rather be murdered, or continue living? If you answer like the vast majority of people would, then you have your answer. 

All you have to do to determine that slavery is wrong, is ask he slaves how they feel about it. Would you rather be enslaved, or continue to be free?

The basis of your reasoning, if I'm not mistaken, is that because I'm sentient, that makes me objectively obligated (via science, not just something you made up) to care about the preferences of every other sentient being on the planet?  That doesn't strike you as incredibly flimsy and super duper scientifically not a thing?

Interesting you went with sentience instead of species.  Got to get the moo cows under the umbrella, I guess?

I think the phrase 'objectively valuable' is meaningless. Something can only have value to something capable of valuing it. But you can determine objectively what things beings capable of valuing something value.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree with the comment about denying the antecedent.  Even then, I think that this argument is more properly applied against materialism, than for God.  While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary.   I think a better syllogism is 1) If materialism is true, then objective moral values do not exist.  2) Objective moral values exist  C)  Therefore materialism is not true.

I did recently see an interesting article concerning this subject.   Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist

[ul]
[li]Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality [/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions[/li]
[li]Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance [/li]
[/ul]

The problem is that both 1 and 2 are at issue, and themselves need to be proved.

I'm going to read that article, but before it depresses me, do you need an absolute standard of length to tell one thing is longer than another? There are different kinds of moral relativism, those statements logically apply to normative moral relativism, but not to descriptive moral relativism.

[Mister Agenda]

Debunked? I haven't seen that so far. Maybe I missed it. Could you explain more fully how the argument has been debunked prior to this point in the thread?

---

[quote=wallym]

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

Ignoring that, morality is not objective.