How is that even a meaningful argument sxb? First you have to explain descriptively the constituents in your first premise and second premise which is God and objective moral values. Secondly, what makes them inexorably linked together? And how did you arrive at this conclusion? ( epistemological question). It begs so many questions because your argument is tautological and meaningless to begin with. It has no predictive and explanatory power..
If you are going to assert something, at least present the logical justifications for it. You can't just boldly claim and say that moral values depend on God. That's like saying natural laws depend on God. Unless you are implicitly invoking the cosmological argument into your syllogism? You see! More questions...
You were trying to apply an invalid syllogism about lions existence etc with no logical premises and assert from that all syllogisms are invalid. I corrected you on that.
The moral argument is a deductive argument, it doesn't beg the question, no one is arguing that these premises are known with certainty, just that they are more plausible than their negations, which is all that's needed.
The video and i myself already explained the logical foundation for the premises and the arrival of the conclusion.. I will run it down for ya
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values – it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint – which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.
This kind of morality is
subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream – the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.
So, in a world without God, there can be “… no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, Atheist)
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature – highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.
But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong
do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.
We’re well aware that child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong . . . for everybody . . . always. Is this just a personal preference or opinion? No.
“The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” (Michael Ruse, Agnostic)
What all this amounts to, then, is a moral argument for the existence of God:
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
It doesn't make it less logical or less true.
