The Moral Argument is Not Sound

The moral argument appeals to the existence of moral laws as evidence of God's existence. According to this argument, there couldn't't be such a thing as morality without God; "If there is no God, then everything is permissible. " That there are moral laws, then, that not everything is permissible, proves that God exists. Must God ground morality? Philosophers have been doing moral philosophy with God in mind forever. Though some do not, and that mite be what the problem is within the human perspective of morality. Atheists have came up with many quality arguments against religious belief, and pushed on the dialogue of religion and its relation to morality, there are too many shortcomings to form an approach based on atheism. God cannot be the ground of moral value in part because there are possible worlds in which God does not exist and yet moral values exist. The theist faces no problem, since he believes that God is a logically necessary being and so can ground moral values in every logically possible world. So the objection finds no purchase against the theist. If God is a contingent being, He cannot ground moral values. My opponent brings forward two main contentions: (1) Theism can provide a foundation for morality. (Theistic morality is possible) (2) AFM cannot provide a foundation for morality. (Non-theistic morality is impossible. ) My opponent is not correct because God doesn't have to ground moral value, here we see the structure for my argument: 1. Necessarily, if moral values exist, then God exists or If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. 2. Necessarily, moral values exist and Objective moral values exist. 3. Therefore, necessarily, God exists. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent then goes on in his argument to suggest that I, his opponent, must provide the answers to all the questions available(even the ones not asked). Well he got to answer some too. First off, One should consider that friendly atheism can not be in accord with the ordinary use of the term 'friendly'. To advocate friendly atheism in this sense of the term 'friendly' would be to advocate that atheists be friendly people, that is, that they should be open, warm and sociable. This would include being friendly to theists, their traditional enemies. Which I doubt there is significant reason to conclude as such. Secondly, Working out the fine details and balance between morality and nature is not settled for any. When we're done morality or immorality is based by the fingerprints of God not without. We see these as ethics and we have thought that God has had something to do with them sine the dawn of man. There's nothing "good" about goodness or "bad" about badness without a standard to set it by. Though we have those common standards that has been permeate throughout history but atheist look to self means to reflect it. These feelings and habits simply are what they are, the sole product of God's character which we receive from his essence and spirit. Moral Values Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual's behavior and choices. Individual's morals may derive from society and government, religion, or self. Moral Duties Moral duties are constituted by the commands of an essentially just and loving God. It seems to me that this theory does derive an "ought" from an "is," and justifiably so. The theory does ground moral values in God's unchanging nature. God is the paradigm of goodness. But that is not to say that "because God is a certain way we ought to behave in certain ways. " No, our moral obligations and prohibitions arise as a result of God's commands to us. My opponent has failed to implement these premises: Objectivity: The truth of a moral proposition is independent of the beliefs of any particular human being or human community. Normativity: Moral considerations, as such, constitute reasons for acting. Categoricity: Moral reasons are reasons for all human persons, regardless of what goals or desires they may have. Authority: Moral reasons are especially weighty reasons. Know ability: In normal circumstances, adult human beings have epistemic access to morally salient considerations. Unity: A human person can have a moral reason to act or to refrain from acting in ways that affect no one other than the agent who performs the act. Any theory that fails to have these properties will not be an adequate theory of moral duty. What is a moral ought? The fact that we ought to do something about the problem of famine isn't a fact about the way that the world is, it's a fact about the way that the world ought to be. This is because moral facts aren't descriptive, they're prescriptive; moral facts have the form of commands. The correct response to this would be to seek God's will and to practice it. How then can we derive a moral ought? So how does Divine Command Theory derive an "ought" from an "is"? Well, it says that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God. That is deriving an "ought" from an "is. " If someone has one reason to do one thing, but morally ought to do another thing, then all things considered they ought to do the other thing. Morality over-rules everything. Morality has ultimate authority. What "recipe" of conditions and properties can we supply which constitutes a moral reason for action? As morality has more authority than any human person or institution, the moral argument suggests, morality can't have been commanded by any human person or institution. As morality has ultimate authority, as morality over-rules everything, morality must have been commanded by someone who has authority over everything. The existence of morality thus points us to a being that is greater than any of us and that rules over all creation. Conclusion If the moral argument can be defended against the various objections that have been raised against it, then it proves the existence of an author of morality, of a being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation. If Pro wants to prove any of his argument, then he must show that AFM is possible by providing a good rebuttal argument for ATF. Thanks, back to Pro. References: Britannica Online entry for agnosticism & atheism. Shermer, Michael, How We Believe (W. H. Freeman and Company), 1999, pp. 257–258. . http://creation.com... . http://www.centerforinquiry.net... www. lastseminary. com/against-naturalism/Ethical%20Naturalism%20. .. ï¿½ PDF file . http://www.shenvi.org... . http://www.existence-of-god.com...