Argument for God
 

Discuss problems with my premises..

P: Evil exists
Q: Absolute morality exists
R: God exists

P -> Q
~R -> ~Q
P
...therefore
R

Show R assertion
1. ~R assumption (ID)
2. ~R -> ~Q premise
3. ~Q 1, 2 MP
4. P premise
5. P -> Q premise
6. Q 4, 5 MP

Re: Argument for God
 

lol.. it highlight the difference between logic, semantic and truth.

Re: Argument for God
 

[ QUOTE ]
Discuss problems with my premises..

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Your logic is valid, of course. I'll discuss your premises briefly:

¬P
¬Q
¬R

¬[](P --> Q)
¬[](¬R --> ¬Q)

( "[]" = "necessarily" )

Re: Argument for God
 

God has nothing to do with absolute morality. In fact, the notion that something is moral or immoral just because God says so is an example of relative morality. Absolute moral rules would be true independent of whether anybody believed they were -- even God. That's what makes them absolute.

Re: Argument for God
 

Why can 't R be:good exists?

Re: Argument for God
 

not p, my friend. not p.

Re: Argument for God
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Discuss problems with my premises..

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Your logic is valid, of course. I'll discuss your premises briefly:

¬P
¬Q
¬R

¬[](P --> Q)
¬[](¬R --> ¬Q)

( "[]" = "necessarily" )

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even see why we need the modality--I would think:

~(P --> Q)

and

~(~R --> ~Q)

are both true.

Re: Argument for God
 

This would be true if "God" were the ontological equivalent of say, your high school vice principal.

Re: Argument for God
 

Stop trying to use unclear (but correct) logic to confuse people. Its fairly obvious ~R -> ~Q is equivalent to Q -> R (MT). So you have the hypotheses P, P->Q, Q->R, and the conclusion R.

How does the existence of "absolute morality" (whatever that is) imply the existence of "God"?