The moral argument for the existence of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm

In other words.....
You cannot be a moral person and at the same time say there is NO GOD....why?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

Premise 1 seems reasonable despite the existence of counterexamples.
Premise 2 is a completely unbacked assertion, rendering the conclusion drawn from it as empty as the premise.

The "in other words" part doesn't follow either, since it seems to assume that being a moral person is only possible if morals are objective, something not asserted in any of the premises.

Does the linked article really word its argument this poorly, or is this just your interpretation of it?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

Noax wrote:Does the linked article really word its argument this poorly, or is this just your interpretation of it?
That is a direct quote from the summary. I've always wondered about the moral argument. Would it not be simpler to simplify the argument to this:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then the words of God would not exist.
Premise 2: The words of God do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

The addition of 'morals' to that argument seems to be a obfuscation designed to sidetrack one from the primary flaw in the argument.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Noax wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:44 pm
The "in other words" part doesn't follow either, since it seems to assume that being a moral person is only possible if morals are objective, something not asserted in any of the premises.
For Objective or Subjective morals to exist there has to be an ''Absolute Rational Conscientious Moral Mind''...intimately known as God the law maker/giver) .
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Noax wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:57 pm
Noax wrote:Does the linked article really word its argument this poorly, or is this just your interpretation of it?
That is a direct quote from the summary. I've always wondered about the moral argument. Would it not be simpler to simplify the argument to this:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then the words of God would not exist.
Premise 2: The words of God do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

The addition of 'morals' to that argument seems to be a obfuscation designed to sidetrack one from the primary flaw in the argument.
Morals come from a conscientious rational mind...meaning the moral law is absolute.

A conscientious rational mind is expressed / known ...through the word. Therefore, God is known to exist.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

Dontaskme wrote:For Objective or Subjective morals to exist there has to be an ''Absolute Rational Conscientious Moral Mind''...intimately known as God the law maker/giver) .
Wrong on several counts. There would only have to be an absolute moral source. That said source is a mind or God would not follow. Said absolute source is only required for objective morals, not relative (or subjective as you name it).

You seem to reiterate this assumption in the subsequent post.

Concerning your assertion of such an objective existence:
A conscientious rational mind is expressed / known ...through the word. Therefore, God is known to exist.
Sounds pretty begging to me. How does this not break down into my compressed argument that there is the word of God, therefore there is God? The specific reference to morals is superfluous to this reasoning.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:51 am The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm

In other words.....
You cannot be a moral person and at the same time say there is NO GOD....why?
Can you name a couple of objective moral tenants or values for us just to have something to apply to the reasoning you put?

Regards
DL
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by surreptitious57 »

Premise I : If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist non sequitur
Premise 2 : Objective moral values do exist blind assertion with zero evidence
Conclusion : Therefore God exists invalid conclusion based on false premises
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
Morals come from a conscientious rational mind meaning the moral law is absolute
Morality is a human concept which means that all moral laws are subjective by definition
The notion of absolute moral law is fallacious for morals cannot be absolute or objective
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
You cannot be a moral person and at the same time say there is NO GOD
Non sequitur
Blind assertion
False equivalence
Argument from emotion
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:30 pmNon sequitur
Blind assertion
False equivalence
Argument from emotion
You missed argument from font, a favorite when lacking a better one.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by thedoc »

I would question the existence of "objective moral values" aren't all values subjective in that they are human in nature. If you assert that is is immoral to torture and kill a child than you must also assert that it is immoral to torture and kill anyone, and to extend it further it is immoral to torture and kill anything. What did you eat for your meal, even if you are vegan you had to torture and kill something alive to survive. So it comes down to the question is it moral to survive?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote:For Objective or Subjective morals to exist there has to be an ''Absolute Rational Conscientious Moral Mind''...intimately known as God the law maker/giver) .
Response by Noax
Noax wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:55 pmWrong on several counts. There would only have to be an absolute moral source. That said source is a mind or God would not follow. Said absolute source is only required for objective morals, not relative (or subjective as you name it).
Response: One cannot know knowledge without a mind. That you are able to know you know something, points to an absolute source of that knowing...which further points to a self evident ''rational thinking knowing mind'' one that cannot be refuted or denied. That mind does not belong to a human being, the mind is the causeless causer / source of everything known, which itself is unknowable..which makes it one with itself ONLY.

The human being does not have it's own mind, just as the moon does not have it's own light separate from the sun, the moon is dependant upon the sun for it's light. So with each human birth, it is dependant on the light that already exists for it's own light to appear... the mind comes online with each birth, the human inherits the mind that already existed prior to it's birth...The mind has to exist prior to any birth or else no human birth could ever take place. It's only the mind that is born here, nothing else.

The human's ability to express ''rational conscientious moral values'' is evidence of a moral, fair and just mind, one that is quite clearly an intelligent designer.


Mind is this all knowing light aka (awareness) known only to itself as and through the word (consciousness) And the word became flesh(Son of man)The Son of man is not the light (awareness).. it is only witness to the light as and through a conscious experience, as evidence of itself alone.


Noax wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:55 pmConcerning your assertion of such an objective existence:
Dontaskme:A conscientious rational mind is expressed / known ...through the word. Therefore, God is known to exist.
Noax wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:55 pmSounds pretty begging to me. How does this not break down into my compressed argument that there is the word of God, therefore there is God? The specific reference to morals is superfluous to this reasoning.
Not really superfluous , when you consider the word ''MORAL'' could not have been known without the word. Words are important pointers, integral reference points toward understanding reality.... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

''He'' as in reference to the I....of I am.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:52 pm
Can you name a couple of objective moral tenants or values for us just to have something to apply to the reasoning you put?
I think one objective moral tenant will suffice.

Here's one>

To know that killing and torturing innocent children is Absolutely Wrong
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:17 pm
Morality is a human concept which means that all moral laws are subjective by definition
The notion of absolute moral law is fallacious for morals cannot be absolute or objective
Any thing known is a concept including the concept HUMAN....therefore, human is known and that which is known cannot know anything. Therefore knowing already has to be prior in existence before that knowing is witnessed as known.

There has to be an absolute knowing knower of all concepts, else concepts could never become known.

Subjective or Objective Knowing, demands an Absolute Knower.
Post Reply