The moral argument is circular, unfortunately.
Here was the video you posted, and then deleted after I posted the following refutation of same.
That is one of the funniest comments I have heard as many of the top atheist philosophers claim it (the moral argument) is the strongest theistic argument. Please defend your claim of circularity. The video is certainly didactic and filled with powerful rhetorical flourish.
Let's look at premise 2.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
The claim is that we are justified in believing (2) on the ground of our moral experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience, just as we are justified in believing that there is a world of physical objects around us on the ground of our sense experience unless and until we have a defeater of that experience.
Our video guru has no small problem in his approach:
"PROVE IT."
"DON'T USE EXPERIENCE OR INTUITION."
Which is tantamount to saying, "Don't Prove the pythagorean theorem using a mathematical proof."
This is just an epistemic trick. Hopefully he has never had one undergrad philosophy class and is just ignorant.
We know since Descartes that all we can prove is that "I exist."
We can't PROVE:
- Other people exist
- a real external world exists
- the reality of the past
And yet our friendly ignorant videographer assumes those and hundreds of other things without question every day.
The source of his hypocrisy is that he is requiring a standard for everything in the world and a different standard for moral truths.
So we can properly believe that other people exist, a real external world exists, that CF exists, and youtube, and computers, and there is a real past DUE TO OUR EXPERIENCE AND THE LACK OF DEFEATERS OF SAME!
On circularity, "Objective morals and duties exist," is a theologically neutral claim held by theist and non-theists alike.
An angry and ignorant rant seems to be carrying the water for your video, rather than careful reasoning.
