Is the Moral Argument logically valid?

Even if there was no awareness to understand objective moral reasoning it would still be available for discovery so I do not agree with p ->
q.

It is like 1+1=2. It exists even if there is no awareness that really understand the idea of 1+1=2.

I understand that we have limited ways to understand how an action spread out over all creation both thru Space and time. Just being in a specific spot with your body mass on this planet have an affect on the whole 3D+1T that will change how everything evolves just like every other being on this planet.

a reply to: In4ormant

I think you implied human morality to god. You used a human construct to equivocate god's morality like teaching kids to ride a bike. something along that line...

Tell me why a child dying of cancer is "wrong".

Well, if there is a god and a heaven/paradise then anyone dying would't be wrong? Would it? they're going to paradise after all, so subjectively speaking, it would be right. Wouldn't it? You see, all of this subjective

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Klassified

This statement blows your whole argument out of the water. There's no evidence whatsoever that objective morality exists. Morality is subjective. Always has been. Always will be.

And here we go with a trial of comments of topic. The topic is not whether they are true the topic is about validity thats entirely different.

1) All dogs are immortal.

(2) Socrates is a dog.

--> Socrates is immortal.

This is a valid deductive argument but is obviously unsound. My point was not to show this argument is sound but that it is in a logically valid format.

I know. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

So if there is no god there is no morality, but seeing there is morality then there is no god. I think that's what I was trying to say

But no logical rule of inference(and you can look at a list of them from the OP) leads us to this conclusion. It is a non sequitur.

Yet if we use premise one and the double negation of Q we can use modus tollens to deduce the double negation of P. And from the double negation of P we get P.

If God does not exists, then objective moral values do not exists.
¬ p → ¬ q
It is not the case that objective moral values do not exists
¬ ¬ q
therefore it is not the case that God does not exists.
∴ ¬ ¬ p

Now the normal version of modus tollens looks like this:

p → q
¬ q
∴ ¬ p

So you negate the second half of the premise to deduce the negation of the first

We do the same thing above except we started with a negative statement so we end up with double negation.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Bravo

This is where Hitchins went wrong when he debated Craig. He got caught up in being right and missed some important reasonable arguement Craig was laying down.

Luckily Harris came along shortly after and cool headed laid down very good rebuttles to Craig.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thats just not true

Your not comparing the rebuttle to your arguement. If God is possibly not perfectly good evil doea not prove god. If God is perfectly good evil should not exist.

Not only that your definition of evil is not the only one. Evil could be a subjective term used by consensus.

It's ok to behead the virgins for sacrifice to God.

It's ok to have sex with temple priestesses in ritual sexual practices.

Since morality can be tied to superstions you end up with antimony.

a reply to: luthier

Math is not necessarily metaphysical. There is some bipolarness but to say mat is metaphysical is false. It's a paradox.

Metaphyics means "beyond phyics". Math must be assumed in order to do physics and is full of abstract concepts. If you think math is physical please show me the 2. Don't give me scratches on paper or pixels on a screen in a particular shape. Don't show me 2 things. Show me 2.

Assuming is not proof. It is what happens when you can't prove something that appears to be true.

I don't have to assume that concept of 2 is metaphysical. It simply is "beyond physics".

As far as morality. It exists in the social contract to create stability.

What obligations do I have to follow a social contract? Why is following the social contract good and rebelling against it bad?

If math could prove something using assumptions I can make a rock solid arguement for fine tuning. But it doesn't.

There are good arguments for fine tuning but I think they need to be formulated as inference to the best explanation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Im having trouble with all of that so to make it simple for me how about this.

God=white
Objective morals=black

If there is no white there is no black

There is black

so

there is white. It that is your equation, then I have nothing more to ask. It is all the proof whatever those two premises conclude. If the answer one wants is a conclusion to those two premises, then that is what one gets.

If my car does not run, then it is broken
My car is not broken therefore it runs. Isn't this the same thing?

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: In4ormant

I think you implied human morality to god. You used a human construct to equivocate god's morality like teaching kids to ride a bike. something along that line...

Tell me why a child dying of cancer is "wrong".

Well, if there is a god and a heaven/paradise then anyone dying would't be wrong? Would it? they're going to paradise after all, so subjectively speaking, it would be right. Wouldn't it? You see, all of this subjective

That's my point really. Trying to use morality to prove it one way or the other doesn't work, for either side.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You don't have to follow the social contract.

But then you don't get its protection. Your essentially a wild animal fending for yourself.

The social contract is what allows people to live together.

I won't murder you if you don't murder me. I won't take your property if you don't take mine. Etc. In order to function in a group it's necessary to make an agreement even of its not spoken.

Your literal emtymology example of the metaphysics is not the working definition we are using.

You said metaphysical things need to be assumed in physics. Sure. But that means they can't be explained yet with proof. It's something that appears to be true.

Oftwn those assumptions turn out to be misunderstanding of another phenomenon.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Exactly, Terry.

Another example:

If there is no white, then there are no giraffes.
There are giraffes.
Therefore there is white.

This is precisely why this is ridiculous.

a reply to: luthier

If God is possibly not perfectly good evil doea not prove god.

If what you mean by God is a being who is not perfectly Good then we are talking about different things. Your talking about B and I am talking about A. This would be a strawman. So there is one rebuttal answered.

If God is perfectly good evil should not exist.

Why? Prove this. I don't think this statement is necessarily true and I can show you that. If a perfectly Good God creates truly free creatures then evil can exists in the presence of a perfectly good God. So your statement is simply not true.

Not only that your definition of evil is not the only one. Evil could be a subjective term used by consensus.

No evil is not subjective. There are no societies that value injustice over justice or unfairness over fairness or immodesty over modesty. Though societies may differ in what they evaluate to be just or fair or modest. You bring this idea of moral relativism which is absurd. It cannot be the case that it is evil to torture babies for fun and also simultaneously be the case that it is good to torture babies for fun. These statements are logically contradictory. What you are saying is that truth can contradict and that is simply absurd.

It's ok to behead the virgins for sacrifice to God.

Except this would conflict with experience in reality. This statement is false. It is not okay to behead virgins for sacrifice to God. The statement "some people think its okay to behead virgin for sacrifice to God" is true, but the very meaning of objective is that it doesn't matter what people think it is the case. If everyone in the world thought it was okay to sacrifice virgins to God that wouldn't make it okay it would simply mean everyone in the world is mistaken. The existence of objective moral values is easily perceived imo. I cannot do anything but show you examples of these. Its kind of like if you said a pineapple was a tv remote and I said a pineapple is not a tv remote. The only way I could convince you of this would be to show you a pineapple and a tv remote and hope you could tell the difference. The only way I can show you an evil action is not a good action is to show you an example of an evil action and an example of a good action and hope you can tell the difference. Moral values are clearly perceived and treated as objective on a daily basis by everyone. You do not use these words in common day language as a subjective preference. People do not teach their kids that murder is okay but that they would prefer them not do it. Rather people teach their kids they should not murder. You simply are proposing a view I find no evidence of in reality.

The humanist philosopher Peter Cave gives the following example:

Whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound. . . . Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong.

Non-theist Louise Antony states:

Any argument for moral scepticism will be based upon premisses which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves. That seems to me quite right. Therefore, moral scepticism is unjustifiable.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If my car does not run, then it is broken My car is not broken therefore it runs. Isn't this the same thing?

No this would be the negation of the formal fallacy affirming the consequent which is as follows:

If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

No logical rule of inference will get you to P even if the statements are true. What you have done is:

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

No logical rule of inference will get you to not p even if the conclusions are true this is logically invalid.

God=white Objective morals=black If there is no white there is no black There is black so there is white. It that is your equation, then I have nothing more to ask. It is all the proof whatever those two premises conclude. If the answer one wants is a conclusion to those two premises, then that is what one gets.

Precisely.

If White does not exist then black does not exists
Black does exists
Therefore White exists.

THIS IS LOGICALLY VALID^^

So is this:

1) All dogs are immortal.

(2) Socrates is a dog.

--> Socrates is immortal.

These are both valid arguments but they are unsound as there premises are not true.

The only thing I claimed in the thread is that the format is valid as the format of the above statements are valid. You seem to be equating logical validity with soundness and that is simply not the case you need to make a distinction between what is valid and what is sound. I get you think the argument is not sound, but do you really think the format is invalid?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I already did prove it on the first page. You chose to ignore it.

Furthermore if you study philosophy you darn well know how this arguement goes. No matter what defence you can not provide a solution to God being omniscient omnipotent and perfectly good. Theists have tried for a long time the outcome is the rebuttles keep coming .

I didn't want to have to play the link game but I can prove you

r arguement has already been made a long time ago and there is already plenty of rebuttle.

Morality in no way proves God. And agian is extremely variable.
And yes societies also carry on what justice is.

Does society really value justice in Saudi Arabia. Yes they do but it's their subjective version.

Just like Hebrews having sex in temples with priestesses.

The real kicker here which destroys your arguement is it took psychological evolution to come up with justice

Justice was a concept developed and refined over the course of the entire human history.

It was an evolution of philosophical ideas passed down through padagodgy.

If evil and justice were not human evolutionary psychology. It would have existed in say the OT. It does not. There are lots of injustices and evils created from the morality itself.

And this is literally seen as one of the weakest arguements for God. Along with Anselm's bizarre one for ontology

Is a cat playing with his food evil?

Do you honestly think there are societies who have not come up with morality that justifies abusing children? In fact you disproved your own logic by saying different people not all have different ideas of morality. If that is possible it means morality is not tied to God.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

Yes it is a silly argument but the format is valid....I don't see why that is so hard for you to see. If premise 1 is true and premise 2 is true the conclusion follows.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I never argued the formats validity.

Your argument is just as silly. I don't see why that is so hard for you to see.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If god exists then morality exists
If god exists then morality doesn't exists
If god doesn't exists then morality exists
If god doesn't exists then morality doesn't exits

Truth Table:

P Q P>Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

If...then conditionals are false when T implies F All other cases are true. Think of false conditionals as a promise. I promise that if god exists then morality exists. But I also promise that if god doesn't exists then morality doesn't exists. I further promise that if God doesn't exits then morality exists. The only way for my promise to be broken is if God exists and morality doesn't exists.

Another example

I promise If it's raining, then I will bring my umbrella. But I never promised that I wouldn't bring my umbrella if it isn't raining.

Raining Bring umbrella
Raining Don't bring umbrella
Not raining Bring umbrella
Not raining don't bring umbrella

The above logic is a lie only when it is raining and i don't bring my umbrella. All other conditions are true because if it's not raining and I bring my umbrella, I still didn't break my original promise.

Whew. Mental gymnastics

a reply to: luthier

I already did prove it on the first page. You chose to ignore it. Furthermore if you study philosophy you darn well know how this arguement goes. No matter what defence you can not provide a solution to God being omniscient omnipotent and perfectly good. Theists have tried for a long time the outcome is the rebuttles keep coming .

You did no such thing. I do study philosophy and I do know darn well most modern day philosophers regardless of belief do no consider this a good logical argument anymore. All you did was assert that if God is omnipotent then he could prevent evil in the world. But I gave you at least one scenario in which God could be perfectly Good and yet evil could still exists. So the idea the a perfectly Good God would create a world without evil is simply untrue. This is known as the free will defense to the logical problem of evil and people like Alvin Plantinga have done a great job of developing it .

So What I want from you is a logical argument that show if God is omnipotent then he can create any world he likes. Second I'd like you to construct a logical argument that shows that if God is omnibenevolent then any world he creates would not have any evil in it.

I didn't want to have to play the link game but I can prove you r arguement has already been made a long time ago and there is already plenty of rebuttle. Morality in no way proves God. And agian is extremely variable. And yes societies also carry on what justice is.

Yes these arguments were first formulated way back in antiquity but modern philosophers have made some serious advancements on these. I didn't play the link game. I gave you two quotes I find present an extremely convincing case against moral sceptisim. You didn't read carefully enough. Yes societies vary on what they think is just, but they do not vary in the sense that they value justice over injustice. If you think I am lying present me with a society that values injustice over justice. A society that rewards homicidal maniacs and punishes life saving doctors. Give me one society that has different moral values. Now I am not asking for societies that disagree about intentions evaluate to these values . I want a society that literally reverses the values.

Does society really value justice in Saudi Arabia. Yes they do but it's their subjective version.

Thanks for proving my point...societies vary on what they think is just that don't value injustice over justice. Justice is an objective idea and what is just is objective. Are you under the impression that in order for morals to be objective everyone needs to agree? If so please define objective and subjective for me as I think there may be some miscommunication.

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

I never argued the formats validity. Your argument is just as silly. I don't see why that is so hard for you to see.

Then we agree and there is nothing more for us to discuss. I didn't come here to discuss the soundness only the validity. It is a valid deductive argument. Glad you saw the point of the OP. I don't think is is just as silly as I think I can show the two premises to be true, but that is not the purpose of this thread as I've stated a hundred times.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I already provided the arguement. Of you don't get it then that's another story.

I don't feel the necessity to copy and paste an arguement that's been playing out in philosophy for the last 350 years. If you take classes you very well know what the arguements your asking for state.

Since your forcing my hand here.

plato.stanford.edu...

No am not saying everyone needs to agree I am saying that since morals vary so greatly they are not simply objective. Hence the antimony problem . I can prove some morals are not objective at all. So you can't say morals are objective. That would be false.