Is the Moral Argument logically valid?

a reply to: TycoonBarnaby

All you say there is that premise one needs to be true in order for the rest of the logic to follow, and I completely agree with that...but that doesn't make it a bad deductive argument. I even said at the end of this OP that IF the premises are true then the conclusion is true. You are arguing against the soundness of this argument on the basis that you do not think premise one is not true. I would disagree and I could argue that but it is not the purpose of the thread. There is nothing logically contradictory about premise 1 and there is nothing logically fallacious about premise 1. That means Premise 1 is valid logic. Whether you think it is sound is a different case entirely .

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Objective moral values do exist.

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.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Are you claiming the moral argument affirms the consequent? That would be like saying:

If P then Q
Q
Therfore P..

This is a formal fallacy as both premises could be true but the conclusion wouldnt follow. This is not the format of the moral argument.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evil is decided from consensus.

Hence why its variable culturally.

Is a cat playing with its prey evil?

And one more time for you

Morality exists within the social contract.

See the categorical imperative by Kant.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Are you claiming the moral argument affirms the consequent? That would be like saying:

If P then Q
Q
Therfore P..

This is a formal fallacy as both premises could be true but the conclusion wouldnt follow. This is not the format of the moral argument.

Well i don't know. it kind of is isn't it? P = God exists Q = morality exists Q therefore P

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.

Just so we are clear lamb I respect apologists as philosophers. I have spent probably 100's of hours thinking about Aquinas and some of the teleological arguements around fine tuning.

It's what led me to be a pandeist of sorts.

But not providing the whole story of the arguement and it's rebuttles and arguements is manipulative. You should lay out the complete arguements and explain why yours makes more sense.

Unless you haven't heard them in which case I can provide links of exactly what you are trying to say.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

If I had formulated it that way yes. But I did not.

I used the negated version of modus tollens.

This is modus tollens
-If P then Q
-Not Q
-Therefore not P

This is a logical rule of inference and is valid I used

If Not P Then Not Q
Q
Therefore P.

This implies double negation as shown in the OP

a reply to: luthier

Welll as I have stated multiple times this is simply to show that the argument is valid. I was not seeking to discuss the truth of the premises. I personally believe they are easy to show to be true but I wanted to stay away from that until people understood that if these premises are true then God does indeed logically exists. I think they are true premises or at the very least more plausible then their negation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I said in the OP I do not care if you think the premises are sound

Yes you did. So you are saying that you have proof that God exists if we assume two premises.

One. That God does not exist, therefore objective morals to not exist. I call this a huge assumption but for the sake of your
argument I am willing to accept it as a premise.

Two. That objective morals DO exist. Again I see this a grand assumption, but for the sake of your argument, I will also take
it as your second premise.

Conclusion. If ONE, and Two, then God exists. Ok. I see it now. The presence of the second premise negates the first premise from the equation. It simply says that the first premise does not exist and relies on it's own assumption of truth as being all that is necessary to prove itself.

Please explain to me how this whole exercise is logically valid. One premise negates another premise. No, never mind, I think I would just prefer to remain, as you say, stupid.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well that's just it. There is no proof in metaphysics. It's all about what you or I THINK

But I do appreciate you doing this instead of relying on scripture.

I wish more Christians did. However you should provide the entire arguements and rebuttles anyhow. Because there are logical rebuttles against you claims as well as your having used logic to make the claims.

Your forgetting the concept of antimony.

a reply to: TheFlyOnTheWall

Exactly.

As in my first arguement. Since I can logically say God could be immoral under the definitions of God in an arguement for evil it discredits the entire premise. (Not really because the arguement he made has been advanced far beyound the information given and it leads to antimony at best.

The only convincing arguements to me are for design and it doesn't prove a god still exists, that there is a god in the Christian sense.

The other is the necessary being arguement. It's hard for me to get around it without using infinite regress. There is a strong rebuttle it just doesn't satisfy me completely.

Again subjective stuff. You can still think and use reason for metaphysics but proof is not a word involved in that debate.

a reply to: luthier

That simply is not the case. Mathematics is metaphyiscal and their are plenty of mathematical truths. There are also logical truths which are metaphyiscal that must be assumed in order to even do basic physics. It would make sense for me to do that if the point of my message was that this is a sound argument. Maybe i'll write another thread that makes that case when I feel like it.

a reply to: luthier

I removed my comment because I confused myself for a moment lol. Mind bender stuff. 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

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

If God does not exists, then objective moral values do not exists.
Objective moral values do exists.
Therefore God Exists.


I am about to show you without a shadow of a doubt this is a clear and simple deductive argument that is logically valid by rules of logical inference. If you continue to think it is not logically valid you've simply gone from ignorance to stupidity so pay close attention:
¬ - negation of the statement.
p - God exists
q- Objective Moral Values Exists

Before calling other people ignorant and stupid you'd best clean up your grammar, which is atrocious. If you're trying to be logically precise, you just failed.

Secondly, logic is a tool, but it doesn't prove anything outside its parameters. You could plug any statements in there you wanted, but q has to be TRUE before you can infer P, and you have no proof at all that q is true.

You've proven nothing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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

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

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

Like I said the categorical imperative is morality.

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

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: In4ormant

Not if any right minded parent can help it. That's why training wheels are a big seller.

Again, it's people like you that apply human morality to God. Tell me why a child dying of cancer is "wrong".

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yes you did. So you are saying that you have proof that God exists if we assume two premises.

I don't think you have to assume they are true, but that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is the logical validity.....

One. That God does not exist, therefore objective morals to not exist. I call this a huge assumption but for the sake of your argument I am willing to accept it as a premise. Two. That objective morals DO exist. Again I see this a grand assumption, but for the sake of your argument, I will also take it as your second premise.

Okay so you have conceded The Not P implies Not Q. You have also conceded Q. Q is the same as saying it is not the case that not Q. From modus tollens via premise 1 and the double negation of Q we can deduce not not P. And not not P is the same as P. This is basic logic.

Conclusion. If ONE, and Two, then God exists. Ok. I see it now. The presence of the second premise negates the first premise from the equation. It simply says that the first premise does not exist and relies on it's own assumption of truth as being all that is necessary to prove itself.

This is not true and had you tried to show this symbolically you would have seen that. The presence of the second premise does not negate the first. Rather it shows that not Q is not the case and from modus tollens we know that if it is not the case that not Q then it also not the case that not P, but if it is not the case that not P then it must logically mean P. You simply are wrong. Try and show the problem with this argument by showing a formal fallacy in the format of the argument rather than just making these claims.

Please explain to me how this whole exercise is logically valid. One premise negates another premise. No, never mind, I think I would just prefer to remain, as you say, stupid.

It doesn't negate a premise it negates a negative statement. Which is just like saying -(-1) = 1. Which is true..

a reply to: schuyler

I don't spell check on forums. This is not a formal paper so I just try my best to get the point across quickly and I am sure I made some mistakes but that doesn't really matter as I wasn't trying to write a school paper . Choosing to get offended by those words is silly imo.

Secondly, logic is a tool, but it doesn't prove anything outside its parameters. You could plug any statements in there you wanted, but q has to be TRUE before you can infer P, and you have no proof at all that q is true. You've proven nothing.

Maybe if you had read a bit more carefully you would see that I wasn't here to prove that Q is true but rather that if premise 1 and 2 are true then P is true. It is simply about validity not soundness.