Is This Statement Logical

[JoeyKnothead]

If god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist therefore god does exist.

Please help me understand how this statement is logical. As a matter of debate I say it ain't, put I could be wrong. I guess my question is why must one exist in order for the other, even if one exists at all?

[polygonx]

Depends on how you define objectivity. In my opinion, the very idea of objective morality is contradictory, because the concept of morality can only apply to conscious decisions, while anything objective must be separate from perception, and thus separate from conscious beings. Even if an omnipotent, omniscient creator defined certain morals for human behavior, those would not be truly objective, because they would simply be the decision (i.e. perception) of one being, albeit God.

Objectivity is simply: objectivity. Objectivity, it is true for you and true for me, regardless of culture, time, or location. The earth presently orbits the sun is an objective statement, that is true. Objective morality would follow the same logic. It is always true, and has always been true. What is contradictory is relativistic morality. It is self-defeating and does not correspond to reality.

Also, a hypothetical omniscient being must either define all rules of reasoning or be subject to higher rules. Therefore, for an omniscient being to come to the conclusion that certain morals should be universal, it must either be an arbitrary conclusion -- and thus not really objective -- because that God defines the foundation of logic, or it is a decision based on some higher rule than omnipotence. The only rules I can think of that have any chance of being higher than omnipotence, and which an omniscient being would follow, are mathematics.

I think Plato raised this concern. While I see your point of arguing the artificiality or arbitrary aspect of God and a moral law issued by God. It is also quite reasonable and actually claimed by the Christian worldview that God is the source of absolute morality. To issue a moral command, He simply reaches into Himself, an eternal being, to state what is moral or not. Thus, human morality is now objective and absolute.

However, at the most fundamental level, mathematics is completely independent of human perception; thus, any system of morality defined purely mathematically would either define humans completely and be a representation of human perception, or it would not take into account human perception and thus not really be a system of morality. Either way, it wouldn't be an objective system of morality.

The same argument is applied to morality. It can exist independent of discovery. Take a look around the world, and tell me if anyone agrees on what is moral at all times for all people.

I think a better way to illustrate objective morality would be to illustrate that all people, at all time and places, transcendent of time and culture, can all be demonstrated to have a moral law. That moral law is: right and wrong. It is an objective systematic description of moral values. The same would be applied mathematically, the equation is correct, or in error. So while what is moral may be of dispute, the evaluation of morality (right and wrong) does exist. This is evidence of an objective moral law.

[David E]

Personally, I prefer saying that there are moral truths rather than there is objective morality.

"Objective morality" seems to imply that moral truths are things existing "out there" in the world like rocks and trees----implies the, in my opinion, useless and false idea of independently existent abstract objects.

It makes more sense to me to simply say that some moral propositions are true. It avoids tying morality to a lot of irrelevent metaphysical speculation.

[polygonx]

Personally, I prefer saying that there are moral truths rather than there is objective morality.

If you claim a 'moral truth', then you are claiming an 'objective moral'.

"Objective morality" seems to imply that moral truths are things existing "out there" in the world like rocks and trees----implies the, in my opinion, useless and false idea of independently existent abstract objects.

If I understand you correctly...first, rocks and trees are not abstract objects. Second, mathematics is an abstract idea. However, 1 rock plus 1 rock equals two rocks, would be a abstract idea that corresponds to reality. Hence, giving a rational discourse to Rockology.

It makes more sense to me to simply say that some moral propositions are true. It avoids tying morality to a lot of irrelevent metaphysical speculation.

Did you think that morality was not of a metaphysical concern? It is entirely a metaphysical concern.

[Goat]

Personally, I prefer saying that there are moral truths rather than there is objective morality.

If you claim a 'moral truth', then you are claiming an 'objective moral'.

Is he? Or is he saying there are morals he thinks are truth? Moral truths can be perfectly subjective.

[polygonx]

Personally, I prefer saying that there are moral truths rather than there is objective morality.

If you claim a 'moral truth', then you are claiming an 'objective moral'.

Is he? Or is he saying there are morals he thinks are truth? Moral truths can be perfectly subjective.

The speed of light travels at 186,000 mps for you, but not for me. The speed of light travels at 186,000 mps for me, but not for you.

Subjectivity for truth, is self-defeating and logically impossible.

[Goat]

Personally, I prefer saying that there are moral truths rather than there is objective morality.

If you claim a 'moral truth', then you are claiming an 'objective moral'.

Is he? Or is he saying there are morals he thinks are truth? Moral truths can be perfectly subjective.

The speed of light travels at 186,000 mps for you, but not for me. The speed of light travels at 186,000 mps for me, but not for you.

Subjectivity for truth, is self-defeating and logically impossible.

Prove that 'subjectivity for truth' is self defeating and logically impossible.

That is an unsupported claim