Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Ana the Ist]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

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

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

Perhaps this has been established already...but I didn't feel like pouring over the 47+ pages of posts to see if it's been answered...

The problem with your argument as constructed is many fold, but the main ones as I see them are...

How do you establish this connection between the existence of "objective morals" and the existence of a god? How do you know these two concepts are connected with regard to their existence? In other words...how do you know that god doesn't exist without objective morals and objective morals don't exist without god?

The next biggest problem (and some would probably say the biggest) is that you haven't established the existence of objective morals. How do you know they exist? What are they? How do we establish their objectivity or morality?

If all you can do is say that objective morals exist...and you cannot demonstrate or establish their existence...then your whole argument is nothing but one empty claim.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The next biggest problem (and some would probably say the biggest) is that you haven't established the existence of objective morals. How do you know they exist? What are they? How do we establish their objectivity or morality?

If all you can do is say that objective morals exist...and you cannot demonstrate or establish their existence...then your whole argument is nothing but one empty claim.

You can define objective morals into existence by defining the word "morality" such that they can exist, along with specifically defining any given possible moral action to correspond with the definition of "morality".

For example, if I define morality as "Choices I make that increase my immediate happiness disregarding everyone else's happiness", then I can objectively make specific moral decisions like "Should I punch my neighbor in the mouth if he annoys me this evening at 7PM?". I can't however make objective decisions on general moral questions like "Is it moral for anyone to punch anyone else in the mouth?" because it's not enough information to apply to my definition of "moral".

Similarly, if everyone agrees that "morality" means an increase in well being for society as a whole (and everyone agrees on what "well being" is) you can say that for any specific moral situation that anyone faces, there exists the best course of action to maximize that well being. That's not to say that we'll always be able to recognize what the best course of action is based on unknown variables, just that a best course of action would exist.

The upshot is that there's no need for a god in these scenarios. In an human-created objective moral system, the best course of action has the potential to be discovered by us without any intervention from a god.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can define objective morals into existence by defining the word "morality" such that they can exist, along with specifically defining any given possible moral action to correspond with the definition of "morality".

For example, if I define morality as "Choices I make that increase my immediate happiness disregarding everyone else's happiness", then I can objectively make specific moral decisions like "Should I punch my neighbor in the mouth if he annoys me this evening at 7PM?". I can't however make objective decisions on general moral questions like "Is it moral for anyone to punch anyone else in the mouth?" because it's not enough information to apply to my definition of "moral".

I'm not sure this works as well as you think it does. To me, it sounds like you're describing subjective morality...for it to be objective, it would have to be "moral" regardless of any personal reasons/opinions/perceptions that you may have. I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't see what's objective about your example or definition. Here's the definition of subjective I'm working from...

"a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind "

You'll find that on Merriam Webster's page...but from my understanding, it's a rather spot on definition of subjective. In your example...what is the part that's "independent of mind"? To me...it still looks as if the behavior you're describing is something that you perceive will make you happy (whether you're correct or not about this doesn't actually matter).

Similarly, if everyone agrees that "morality" means an increase in well being for society as a whole (and everyone agrees on what "well being" is) you can say that for any specific moral situation that anyone faces, there exists the best course of action to maximize that well being.

So basically, under conditions that don't exist in reality...we could describe morality as objective? I'm sure you know as well as I do...that even if we could get everyone to agree on what morality means, we can't get them to agree on what "well-being" means.

It's a fun thought exercise...but it doesn't help us describe morality as it exists in reality.

That's not to say that we'll always be able to recognize what the best course of action is based on unknown variables, just that a best course of action would exist.

The upshot is that there's no need for a god in these scenarios. In an human-created objective moral system, the best course of action has the potential to be discovered by us without any intervention from a god.

I think we already have a "human created" moral system that doesn't require god, special pleading, or philosophical gymnastics to be described. I'll break it down for you...

Morals are opinions...not facts. They're entirely subjective.

I will totally understand if that idea makes you a bit uncomfortable...I even bet I know why...don't worry about that just yet though. Sit with the idea that morals are just opinions...marinate in it for a little while if you will. Does it describe how we perceive the wide diversity of moral opinions in the world? Sure does. Does it make morality meaningless? Of course not...no less so than any other opinion.

So now we have a concept of morality that describes what we see in reality...and we didn't have to alter any definitions or jump through any philosophical hoops....nor create any gods or otherwise supernatural events to explain morality.

Feel free to reply with your complaints about this model and I'll do my best to address them.

 

[zippy2006]

I find it ironic that many internet infidels are unaware that no naturalist or secular humanist when debating this topic will deny premise (2), but rather focus their argument on the ontological basis of objective morality.

I guess this is to be expected. And just to think, I was hoping someone would be capable of defending the naturalistic view with some sort of proficiency.

I haven't visited this topic in some time, but I think it is a bit more nuanced than you let on. You are making some good points that aren't being understood, but as you imply, premise (1) is vulnerable. Without entering the fray, here are some references:

This topic came up on Public Discourse in late 2013. Here are the links:

1. Dennis Prager defends the view that objective morality is tied to God's existence (here, here, and here).
2. Kenneth Kemp responds in the negative here.
3. Robert Miller chimes in here.
4. Adam Seagrave recaps and transitions here.

Beyond that this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan is interesting. (Kagan makes some good points despite the success Craig has elsewhere with this argument)

This argument is ridiculous. You are essentially saying that, if morality evolved, then there is no morality. That is like saying if colour perception evolved, then no one can perceive colour.

The eye evolves in a way that allows it to access objective realities that existed before it evolved and will exist after it perishes. Few naturalists grounding morality in evolution understand a human faculty for perceiving objective morality to have evolved in this way. For them, moral realities came into existence with evolution and will perish with it because they are a by-product of it--and it is for precisely this reason that their morality is not truly objective in the sense intended by the OP. If they thought that light and color did not exist apart from the human eye, then your analogy would hold.

As an aside, Elio is right when pointing to the contortion (and academic rarity) of denying premise (2), and the effect is to reveal an atheistic apologetics that is no less insincere than the theistic apologetics you abhor. The atheists denying premise (2) probably do believe in at least a minimal objective morality, and yet deny this truth to repel what they see as a threat to their atheism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... The eye evolves in a way that allows it to access objective realities that existed before it evolved and will exist after it perishes. Few naturalists grounding morality in evolution understand a human faculty for perceiving objective morality to have evolved in this way. For them, moral realities came into existence with evolution and will perish with it because they are a by-product of it--and it is for precisely this reason that their morality is not truly objective in the sense intended by the OP. If they thought that light and color did not exist apart from the human eye, then your analogy would hold.

Colour doesn't exist independently of eyes and brains; it is a result of processing the limited frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that the eye responds to. Within that range, different people may perceive the same frequency mix differently - for example, colour-blind people see a restricted spectrum of colour, and some people have a fourth retinal photopigment that gives them an expanded colour spectrum (known as tetrachromacy). Other creatures with similar visual processing respond to additional frequencies we can't detect, e.g. ultra-violet and infra-red, and presumably see them as distinct colours. We can also see colours that don't correspond to frequencies of light in the natural world, the so-called 'chimerical' colours - classified as stygian ('impossibly' dark), self-luminous (apparently glowing), and hyperbolic (unnaturally saturated); all achieved by manipulating after-image effects. These colours don't have any light frequency equivalent, they are artefacts of processing by the opponent-process network neurons handling color perception in the visual cortex (see Churchland, P. 'Chimerical Colors: Some Phenomenological Predictions from Cognitive Neuroscience'; Philosophical Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 527–560)

As an aside, Elio is right when pointing to the contortion (and academic rarity) of denying premise (2), and the effect is to reveal an atheistic apologetics that is no less insincere than the theistic apologetics you abhor. The atheists denying premise (2) probably do believe in at least a minimal objective morality, and yet deny this truth to repel what they see as a threat to their atheism.

Premise 2 needs definition, explanation, and substantiation - what does 'objective morality' really mean? 'Objective' is demonstrable fact that is independent of human opinions and feelings; a moral is a behavioural rule or guideline; how would we detect or determine a moral that is independent of human opinions and feelings? how would you demonstrate the fact of it? Even if we could establish that some moral guideline is universal among humans, that wouldn't make it objective, it would only establish the objective fact of the universality of that moral opinion or belief.

 

[zippy2006]

Colour doesn't exist independently of eyes and brains...

It's just semantics. "Color" can refer to a perception experienced by an agent or it can refer to the object perceived (i.e. wavelengths of light). As long as you understand the latter sense then it does exist independently of the eye, and my point holds perfectly fine. Indeed, the evolution of the eye revealed the existence of these previously imperceptible wavelengths, and therefore what I said holds.

(It is worth noting, however, that my primary point did not require the concept of "color" and I only used that word one time, in conjunction with "light")

I could answer you in more detail, but I would just ask whether you even disagree with my main point, "The eye evolves in a way that allows it to access objective realities that existed before it evolved and will exist after it perishes"? Slight variations in color perception among individuals of a given species do not undermine this point, nor do such variations undermine the basic objectivity of the perception of light frequencies.

Premise 2 needs definition, explanation, and substantiation - what does 'objective morality' really mean? 'Objective' is demonstrable fact that is independent of human opinions and feelings; a moral is a behavioural rule or guideline; how would we detect or determine a moral that is independent of human opinions and feelings? how would you demonstrate the fact of it? Even if we could establish that some moral guideline is universal among humans, that wouldn't make it objective, it would only establish the objective fact of the universality of that moral opinion or belief.

It seems like you're not understanding my point. I am saying that the same people who believe in objective morality are denying it because it is believed to impede their atheism. Like Elio pointed out, many of these same people would admit that certain horrendous acts are objectively immoral.

As to what objective morality means, how it is detected, etc., you can ask the atheists in question. For example: do you believe raping and murdering a small child is objectively immoral? Most people of all creeds and education will answer yes. If you answer no despite believing that it is immoral because you wish to evade "God implications" then you're doing something similar to what Arch detests in many apologists. (If there were more intellectual honesty in the room we would have seen much more objection to premise 1). That's all I was saying.

 

[Ken-1122]

As to what objective morality means, how it is detected, etc., you can ask the atheists in question. For example: do you believe raping and murdering a small child is objectively immoral? Most people of all creeds and education will answer yes.

I disagree. Morality is subjective not objective. Subjective means influenced by opinion, open for discussion; etc. Objective means not influenced by opinion; not left to interpretation. IOW anything that is objective can be demonstrated. Now how do you demonstrate morality?

Consider the example:

If I were thirsty and I saw a puddle of water and I were about to drink from the puddle, but someone tells me that puddle is poisonous, that is an objective claims that is demonstrable. Let’s say I did a chemical analysis on the puddle and found out the water in the puddle also contained ethylene glyco. Ethylene Glyco is poisonous to all mammals. Humans are mammals thus it is demonstrated the puddle was poisonous to me.

Let’s say I were mentally sick and refused to believe the puddle were poisonous; it would still kill me, because the effects of this poison is not left to interpretation, influenced by personal opinion, etc. etc. Let’s say a dog came by to drink from the puddle; it would kill a dog, cat, or any other mammal just as it would kill me. That is an example of Objective.


Consider morality. You mentioned rape. Rape is defined as unconsentual sex. What about animals? Animals are unable to consent, so do they only reproduce via rape? For humans, the age of consent in California is 18; next door in the state of Nevada, it is 17. So if a 17 yr old has sex in California it is rape but if they go the next state over, it is fine. How could that be called objective?

Consider murder. Murder is an illegal killing. So if an armed criminal enters my house and I kill him with my gun is it murder? How about if he only has a knife? How about if he is unarmed but he is bigger than I and I’m afraid he will kill me with his bare hands? How about if he doesn’t enter my house but is on my property? These moral issues are subjective.


Ken

 

[Ana the Ist]

I haven't visited this topic in some time, but I think it is a bit more nuanced than you let on. You are making some good points that aren't being understood, but as you imply, premise (1) is vulnerable. Without entering the fray, here are some references:

This topic came up on Public Discourse in late 2013. Here are the links:

1. Dennis Prager defends the view that objective morality is tied to God's existence (here, here, and here).
2. Kenneth Kemp responds in the negative here.
3. Robert Miller chimes in here.
4. Adam Seagrave recaps and transitions here.

Beyond that this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan is interesting. (Kagan makes some good points despite the success Craig has elsewhere with this argument)



The eye evolves in a way that allows it to access objective realities that existed before it evolved and will exist after it perishes. Few naturalists grounding morality in evolution understand a human faculty for perceiving objective morality to have evolved in this way. For them, moral realities came into existence with evolution and will perish with it because they are a by-product of it--and it is for precisely this reason that their morality is not truly objective in the sense intended by the OP. If they thought that light and color did not exist apart from the human eye, then your analogy would hold.

As an aside, Elio is right when pointing to the contortion (and academic rarity) of denying premise (2), and the effect is to reveal an atheistic apologetics that is no less insincere than the theistic apologetics you abhor. The atheists denying premise (2) probably do believe in at least a minimal objective morality, and yet deny this truth to repel what they see as a threat to their atheism.

I objected to point #2...because I see it as a baseless assertion. Also, I believe that morality is subjective/relative...not even a minimal bit of objectivity.

Hope that clears some things up.

 

[quatona]

As to what objective morality means, how it is detected, etc., you can ask the atheists in question. For example: do you believe raping and murdering a small child is objectively immoral? Most people of all creeds and education will answer yes.

So do I get this right: In order to determine objective facts you ask people for their personal subjective opinions?

If you answer no despite believing that it is immoral

Typically, moral subjectivists will answer no because you asked if they believe it´s "objectively immoral".

because you wish to evade "God implications"

I don´t see any "God implications" in this questions, to begin with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems like you're not understanding my point. I am saying that the same people who believe in objective morality are denying it because it is believed to impede their atheism. Like Elio pointed out, many of these same people would admit that certain horrendous acts are objectively immoral.

How does it "impede atheism"? Adopting moral realism in no way necessitates that one also adopt theism.

As to what objective morality means, how it is detected, etc., you can ask the atheists in question. For example: do you believe raping and murdering a small child is objectively immoral? Most people of all creeds and education will answer yes. If you answer no despite believing that it is immoral because you wish to evade "God implications" then you're doing something similar to what Arch detests in many apologists.

You are making the same mistake as Jeremy: confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong."

(If there were more intellectual honesty in the room we would have seen much more objection to premise 1). That's all I was saying.

But we've seen plenty of objection to premise 1 already, throughout the thread, throughout multiple threads in fact. In this particular thread, the premise is rendered tautological, with "objective" being defined as "God-given."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's just semantics. "Color" can refer to a perception experienced by an agent or it can refer to the object perceived (i.e. wavelengths of light). As long as you understand the latter sense then it does exist independently of the eye, and my point holds perfectly fine.

It's more than just semantics. Colour is a subjective interpretation, it doesn't necessarily correspond to the frequencies of light in the outside world. The same frequencies can be perceived as different colours depending on the individual and/or the context (e.g. colour illusions).

.. I would just ask whether you even disagree with my main point, "The eye evolves in a way that allows it to access objective realities that existed before it evolved and will exist after it perishes"?

I agree with that.

It seems like you're not understanding my point. I am saying that the same people who believe in objective morality are denying it because it is believed to impede their atheism. Like Elio pointed out, many of these same people would admit that certain horrendous acts are objectively immoral.

I don't know how atheism could be 'impeded', except for doubting theists; t wouldn't surprise me if some people think that way, but as a sweeping generalization, it's right up there.

... For example: do you believe raping and murdering a small child is objectively immoral? Most people of all creeds and education will answer yes. If you answer no despite believing that it is immoral because you wish to evade "God implications" then you're doing something similar to what Arch detests in many apologists. (If there were more intellectual honesty in the room we would have seen much more objection to premise 1). That's all I was saying.

I would guess that most atheists think, like me, that morals are implicitly subjective - personal beliefs, opinions, or guidelines about behaviour; and that - without some coherent explanation of its meaning - an 'objective moral' is oxymoronic, like an 'objective experience'. I suspect that that most atheists think the concept of objective morals or objective morality is nonsensical, and if they say something isn't 'objectively moral/immoral', they mean it can't be 'objectively moral/immoral' because that's nonsensical. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with 'God implications'; atheists don't believe in Gods

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree. Morality is subjective not objective. Subjective means influenced by opinion, open for discussion; etc. Objective means not influenced by opinion; not left to interpretation.

I guess I prefer the dictionary definitions.

I would guess that most atheists think, like me, that morals are implicitly subjective - personal beliefs, opinions, or guidelines about behaviour; and that - without some coherent explanation of its meaning - an 'objective moral' is oxymoronic, like an 'objective experience'. I suspect that that most atheists think the concept of objective morals or objective morality is nonsensical, and if they say something isn't 'objectively moral/immoral', they mean it can't be 'objectively moral/immoral' because that's nonsensical. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with 'God implications'; atheists don't believe in Gods

I disagree, but I don't see much movement for this topic.

 

[Ken-1122]

I guess I prefer the dictionary definitions.

It seems dictionary.com agrees with me.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective?s=t
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective?s=t

Ken

 

[zippy2006]

It's more than just semantics. Colour is a subjective interpretation, it doesn't necessarily correspond to the frequencies of light in the outside world. The same frequencies can be perceived as different colours depending on the individual and/or the context (e.g. colour illusions).

I understand what you are saying, but the fact is, there is a correspondence between the subjective experience of color and frequencies of light. There are some outlier cases where this does not hold, and there are some slight deviations from individual to individual, but the basic correspondence holds and that is all that my argument requires.

I agree with that.

Good, I thought you would.

I don't know how atheism could be 'impeded', except for doubting theists; t wouldn't surprise me if some people think that way, but as a sweeping generalization, it's right up there.

It is interesting that atheists will claim no favoritism in favor of their atheism. They say they do not fear losing it. Apart from common experience contradicting their claim, there is a very basic principle of humanity that shows it to be false.

Property is cherished for many reasons. One reason the owner cherishes property is incredibly simple: because it is theirs. The more something is ours, the more intimately it is connected with our own self, the more we love it, for the natural love we have for ourselves is transferred to it. This is especially true with things we make, produce, or generate. It is the fruit of our hands, it is "ours" in a special way. I can think of two realities that are generated in an especially intimate way: thoughts and children. The love for each of them is on clear display in an argument and on the child's birthday, respectively.

The atheist fears losing his atheism because he loves his atheism. He loves his atheism because it is something he breathed forth, something he generated, gave life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true'. It can even become bound up with his self-image, his understanding of himself, the narratives that are played over in his head, his reward system, etc. He loves it because it is his child. The Communist loves Communism, the Democrat Democracy, and the Atheist Atheism. There may be other reasons that our thoughts and ideologies are loved, but this is certainly one of them.

 

[Ken-1122]

The atheist fears losing his atheism because he loves his atheism. He loves his atheism because it is something he breathed forth, something he generated, gave life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true'. It can even become bound up with his self-image, his understanding of himself, the narratives that are played over in his head, his reward system, etc. He loves it because it is his child. The Communist loves Communism, the Democrat Democracy, and the Atheist Atheism. There may be other reasons that our thoughts and ideologies are loved, but this is certainly one of them.

I’m not an atheist because I find atheism attractive. I'm an atheist because I don't believe the people who claim God exist, and I haven't seen any other evidence that indicate I should. Atheism actually comes with a lot of downsides. Religion offers answers and responses to loss, death, tragedy, inequality, and injustice. Atheism takes all of that away and offers nothing in return. That doesn't matter because I'm not sitting here doing a cost-benefit analysis. From my point of view atheism is the only option because IMO God doesn't exist and religion is founded on an empty throne.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

It seems like you're not understanding my point. I am saying that the same people who believe in objective morality are denying it because it is believed to impede their atheism.

Why would you assume someone believe in objective morality when they deny it? Why can't you take them at their word and recognize they deny it because they don't believe in it?

Like Elio pointed out, many of these same people would admit that certain horrendous acts are objectively immoral.

Maybe they claim those horrendous acts are SUBJECTIVELY immoral.

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is interesting that atheists will claim no favoritism in favor of their atheism. They say they do not fear losing it. Apart from common experience contradicting their claim, there is a very basic principle of humanity that shows it to be false.

Property is cherished for many reasons. One reason the owner cherishes property is incredibly simple: because it is theirs. The more something is ours, the more intimately it is connected with our own self, the more we love it, for the natural love we have for ourselves is transferred to it. This is especially true with things we make, produce, or generate. It is the fruit of our hands, it is "ours" in a special way. I can think of two realities that are generated in an especially intimate way: thoughts and children. The love for each of them is on clear display in an argument and on the child's birthday, respectively.

The atheist fears losing his atheism because he loves his atheism. He loves his atheism because it is something he breathed forth, something he generated, gave life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true'. It can even become bound up with his self-image, his understanding of himself, the narratives that are played over in his head, his reward system, etc. He loves it because it is his child. The Communist loves Communism, the Democrat Democracy, and the Atheist Atheism. There may be other reasons that our thoughts and ideologies are loved, but this is certainly one of them.

That's an interesting way of putting it, zippy. It's also damning, in the sense that no one escapes free of this judgment of being "in love" with the ideas they bring forth and defend. But I don't think it's absolute. It obviously can't be, or we wouldn't ever change our minds about anything. Hopefully it isn't too cliche to say that sometimes we are thrust into a situation where we must choose between what is easy and what is hard. Do we cherish the idea more than we care for the truth? This is something we all face in life, regardless of our theological disposition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I... the basic correspondence holds and that is all that my argument requires.

Sure, I don't have a problem with that; I was just pointing out an error.

It is interesting that atheists will claim no favoritism in favor of their atheism.

Will they? what, precisely, do you mean by 'favoritism' here? If, for example, I don't believe in pixies, how would I show favoritism in favor of my lack of belief in pixies? Would arguing contrary to people who say they believe in pixies be favoritism?

They say they do not fear losing it. Apart from common experience contradicting their claim, there is a very basic principle of humanity that shows it to be false.

I could understand that might be the case for some atheists who have recently lost a strong belief in a God, or Gods; but for the rest of us, fearing loss of non-belief in God makes about as much sense as fearing we might start believing that Harry Potter, or Santa Claus, really exist.

The atheist fears losing his atheism because he loves his atheism. He loves his atheism because it is something he breathed forth, something he generated, gave life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true'. It can even become bound up with his self-image, his understanding of himself, the narratives that are played over in his head, his reward system, etc. He loves it because it is his child. The Communist loves Communism, the Democrat Democracy, and the Atheist Atheism. There may be other reasons that our thoughts and ideologies are loved, but this is certainly one of them.

I think you're way off beam here. The majority of atheists I know don't give it a second thought unless someone asks them; it's simply not an active part of their lives, they don't love it, and they don't fear losing it; deities are just one of many fictions they know about but don't believe are real.

Do you fear losing your lack of belief in Shintoism because you love your lack of belief in it? is your lack of belief in Shintoism something you've breathed forth, generated, given life to, affirmed, nourished, labored over, defended, and labeled 'true' - or do you not really think about it, unless asked?

There is a minority of atheists who, like me, enjoy discussing the philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of belief and belief systems; there is a smaller minority of atheists who are activists and feel they have a duty to confront what they see as dangerous superstition and irrationality, some out of honest concern, and some out of egotism and attention seeking; but 'twas ever thus in human affairs.

 

[Armoured]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

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

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

Prove objective moral values exist, and we'll talk. Until then, your premise is flawed.

 

[Armoured]

. Do we cherish the idea more than we care for the truth?

Talk to YECs some time!