Is the Moral Argument logically valid?

a reply to: luthier

None of them are convincing to me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

So murder is the only morality?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There you go.

Your arguement is not convincing to me.

That doesn't mean it's wrong.

It means it's not something you can't prove. As most philosophers will tell you.

a reply to: luthier

No murder is not the only morality.

Are you saying it is good to value modesty and it is evil to value modesty are equally justifiable statements?

Are you saying it is good to value justice and it is evil to value justice are equally justifiable statements?

That seems completely absurd on the basis of observation of interactions among people in the world.

a reply to: luthier

Yes but if you were to bring up a particular one I would have a reason as to why it doesn't convince me. I never seem to get that here. Not only that I created a thread a while back looking for people to present their own world view and reasons to believe it but none of them where able or just not willing.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

So....God didn't murder when he caused the "Great Flood" "Sodom and Gomorrah"?

Tell me...Who "sinned" for God to have claimed "It is not good", in Genesis 2:18? Did God create something "evil"?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Here you go.

Just a wiki copy since this is not an original idea and neither of us cane up with this arguement. I chose wiki because it is simple. This is not the forum on my cell (just had labrum surgery) to have a formal debate.

If you would like to set a date and go for it on a forum with philosophy students or a moderator let's do it.

Critics of Plantinga's argument, such as philosophers J. L. Mackie and Antony Flew, have responded that it presupposes a libertarian, incompatibilist view of free will (free will and determinism are metaphysically incompatible), while their view is a compatibilist view of free will (free will and determinism, whether physical or divine, are metaphysically compatible).[31][32] The view of compatibilists such as Mackie and Flew is that God could have created a world containing moral good but no moral evil. In such a world people could have chosen to only perform good deeds, even though all their choices were predestined.[13] Plantinga dismisses compatibilism, according to which a person is free if, and only if she could have done otherwise if she wanted to do otherwise by saying that it is "altogether paradoxical".[33] He thinks that "this objection... seems utterly implausible. One might as well claim that being in jail doesn't really limit one's freedom on the grounds that if one were not in jail, he'd be free to come and go as he pleased".[34] Regarding Flew's criticism Plantinga concludes that "his objection is in an important sense merely verbal and thus altogether fails to damage the free will defense."[35][clarification needed]

The problem of natural evil Edit
Another issue with Plantinga's defense is that it does not address the problem of natural evil, since natural evil is not brought about by the free choices of creatures. Plantinga's reply is a suggestion that it is at least logically possible that perhaps free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evils (e.g. rebellious spirits or fallen angels).[25] This suggestion assigns the responsibility for natural evils to other moral actors.[36]

"Omnipotent God" of Alvin Plantinga has limited power Edit
A recent objection to the defense is due to Geirsson and Losonsky,[37] who question the interpretation of the fourth assertion in the definition of transworld depravity ("If S´ were actual, P would go wrong with respect to A"). This is a contingent fact: it is true in the actual world, but false in the world W. So one may ask if this contingent fact was up to God or not. If it was caused to be true by God, one may wonder why God actualized a world in which this person is transworld depraved when God could have actualized a world where this person, at least with respect to this action, would not suffer from such conditional depravity. If on the other hand, the fact is not up to God, we must accept that an omnipotent God has no power over contingent facts about the world; after all, there do exist possible worlds where the conditional statement in question is not true. Geirsson and Losonsky note that Mackie's reasons for rejecting Plantinga's defense were quite similar:

But how could there be logically contingent states of affairs, prior to the creation and existence of any created beings with free will, which an omnipotent God would have to accept and put up with? This suggestion is simply incoherent.[38]

Despite these objections, many philosophers[5][6] consider Plantinga's defense, with its implicit libertarianism, to be a strong reply to the logical problem of evil.[39] However, other philosophers argue that Plantinga's defense is unsuccessful.[40][41][42][43]

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

P or not p and Q or not Q is the logical method to understand conditionals. The last row in the truth table False, False, True is counter intuitive but still remains a true logical statement even though the premise is false. In other words, you can substitute ANY non-sequitur argument and still have the logical method to be true. Your link shows this.

Here, let me throw a monkey wrench into everything you're talking about. Clearly, you are a Christian. Only one God, the Abraham god. There can be no other god and that Includes Allah.

Buuut...

If we concede and say your logic is correct therefore proving "god" then you must also concede and say the following statement is also true:
Sura 4:82 "If [Quran] had been from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction"

It's the exact same logic you are applying to the Abraham god. So therefore, Allah wrote the Quran. How's your intuition working for you now? Arrrgh, cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Not trying to be cute, just pointing out the dichotomy you are facing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Seems as though you need to define morality. You are choosing some very dramatic topics.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I get you think the argument is not sound, but do you really think the format is invalid?

Does it matter if the format is valid or invalid if we use it for arguments based on unsound premise's? Why waste time with it if all that we have to input into your formula is unsound assumptions. To me it's garbage in and garbage out.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Even simpler. If God doesn't exist then we are all just stardust reacting upon random chemical reactions. There is no moral difference between 2 pieces of stardust sharing a gift or one stardust eating the other stardust for lunch.

There is a moral problem with the latter, thus proving we aren't stardust reacting to random chemical reactions.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

There is no moral difference between 2 pieces of stardust sharing a gift or one stardust eating the other stardust for lunch.

What does sharing a gift have to do with morality? SDTs can result in sharing a gift.

What is the moral difference between a human eating a rabbit or a wolf eating a human?

a reply to: windword

Just a random example of doing something nice. Sharing a gift is irrelevant.

And there is no moral difference between the two you explained.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If God exists, whence cometh evil?
Is He willing to prevent it, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

— Epicurus, c.341-270 BC

In over two thousand years, no theologian has ever provided a satisfactory answer. You are not going to be the first.

I posted this in your other thread on the same subject, The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God. You ran away from the thread without replying, though I posted twice more to remind you of the question.

Now you start another thread. Well, here it is again. It defeats any possible moral argument for God. An omnipotent God can never be good and that is that. You might as well just give up.