Scorpion: if dogs don’t exist then nobody has a pet
180 Proof: Non sequitur
Scorpion: What then of everyone with a pet dog?
Pet cats exist too, Scorpion.
Edit: “pet scorpion” was right there and I missed it
1 Like
Nice try but your analogy fails.
It does not. It adequately shows that your response to 180 Proof’s “non sequitur” was yet another non sequitur.
That “many religions … base their morality on an omnibenevolent being” does not entail that if God does not exist then there is no objective morality.
Kant, for example, puts forth a strong case for the categorical imperative being an objective morality. This does not require God.
2 Likes
The starry heavens above and the moral law within ~ Kant
Kant was the originator of the argument from objective morality.
Kant’s CI is interesting. Thank you for the clarification.
Perhaps in his pre-critical phase, but in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals where he develops the Categorical Imperative he says this:
But don’t think that with God the father we have at last found the example or model from which we can derive our concept of morality. Where do we get the concept of God as the highest good from? Solely from the idea of moral perfection that reason lays out for us a priori and which it ties, unbreakably, to the concept of a free will.
…
Objective laws of the good would apply to a perfectly good will just as much to as to any other; but we shouldn’t think of them as constraining such a will, because it is so constituted that it can’t be determined to act by anything except the thought of the good. Thus no imperatives hold for God’s will or for any holy will. The ‘ought’ is out of place here, for the volition is of itself necessarily at one with the law.
So Kant’s answer to the Euthyphro dilemma “is this good because God commands it or does God command this because it is good?” is that God commands this because it is good.
As such it’s possible that there is an objective morality even if there is no God or even if there is a malicious, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent designer.
2 Likes
Yes, that’s a well-known answer to the question that you pose. I was referring to somewhat the same thing. No objective morality sans God.
This is literally the opposite of what I and Kant said. There can be an objective morality without God.
Well, you didn’t explain it well. Please kindly do so. How does it go again?
The good just is the good, even if there is no God. But if there is a God then it is its nature to only do good things.
Even if you were right, that still doesn’t prove God is not the source of goodness in the world, yes?
What do you mean by “source of goodness”?
If Kant is correct then there are objective rights and wrongs even if God doesn’t exist.
Aah, it’s becoming clearer now, but you do realize you’re condensing what is an entire moral theory into 1 sentence. 
I apologize I am not certain, but I was under the impression that it was perfectly reasonable to assume based on available evidence and then be later disproven? if I have no knowledge of the existence of for example a bird having nested in some arbitrary mildly atypical place say a bush instead of a tree when it typically does otherwise is it not reasonable to assume the bird is not present in the bush? finding that it has in fact done so does not mean my prior process was illogical though it was disproven given it was in the bush not the tree. or at least that was my assumption. if I were to when told all birds fly and the penguin is a bird, given that data it would be reasonable to assume correct or not that penguins fly right?
I hate this one. Bad argument. Many caveats.
You are basically saying “fallacy”. I made a topic cautioning against this.
Fallacy fallacy. Every fallacy is a non sequitur.
Strong. Evolutionary? If not, I don’t care to know.
math was created as a description of physical phenomena by humans no? it isn’t a real thing. things may be described by mathematics but they are not necessarily governed by it. a ball may fall regardless of the presence of the description of 9.8m/s^2. God is not necessarily necessary to induce phenomena into existence, nor is it necessarily unnecessary. there is no real point to arguing for or against at this point. and as far as we know yes patterned chaos could create a mind but to our understanding it didn’t. it created a tiny machine that was capable of flawed self replication, which in turn via continuously incorrectly duplicating and until one of the duplicates failed to immediately perish over and over again eventually created a photoreceptive mechanism which was not any use to anything until by happenstance the photoreceptor triggered it to flee thus escaping ultraviolet destruction. this is evolution. meaningless mutation that continues until the mutant dies and whatever fails to die continues no real plan just failing to go extinct, a race to the finish line with the line being set by the furthest runner. a mind didn’t kill its owner that one time way back and thus continued to exist. what made a mind in this argument is chance. chaos. so if to you there must be a god it could be the subatomic chaos that is used as an argument against determinism? this depends on your definition. is God a consciousness to you? if God were prove-ably a random inert stone would that qualify? please explain.
Doesn’t follow at all. No reason has been given for why an objective morality could not exist absent a god.
Is there? Where’s the proof of this? How do humans come to know this objective morality, given that societies change and religious scripture is far from self-consistent, let alone still followed.
On top of everything else, this is the affirming the consequent fallacy. You can’t flip the sign of both of the elements in p1.
ETA: my mistake this is indeed modus tollens
1 Like
It’s modus tollens.
¬P → ¬Q, Q ∴ P
2 Likes
So what of them? Certainly moralities based on “faith” are not objective.
It isn’t wrong to say that all birds fly or that birds aren’t in the bush. Likewise, it isn’t wrong to say that without God there can be no objective morality. 
Yes, exactly, God is necessary for objective morality.
Why, don’t you agree that we have a consonant dyad (mind, math)? Mathematics is abstraction.
God is the reason (for objective morality). 
There is objective morality. Clearly some things are wrong and some things are right.
@180Proof Perhaps you underestimate faith.
Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed
To all the above contributors (thanks)
God is the ground of morality. Without God nothing is good or bad. Consider a dispute in a village somewhere in the world. People involved would go to the village headman to sort things out. Each wouldn’t impose their own beliefs on the other.
Another God argument for God
- There is order in the universe
- If there is order in the universe then God exists
- God exists