To see how bad this question-begging is, let's concoct it's alternative: if God does not exist, objective moral values don't exist, objective moral values don't exist (because God doesn't exist), therefore God doesn't exist -- it's just as "valid" you see -- you can't assume a premise as true to prove that premise! Logic just doesn't work that way! :D
"In the absence of God objective moral values just don't exist." (4:44) If we take this as true, then the "argument" at the beginning (0:32) is a mere question-begging (petitio principii) tautology! For it becomes 1) premise: object moral values exist only if God exists, 2) premise: objective moral values exist (which necessarily means by definition that God exists), conclusion: God exists -- or in shorter form: God exists therefore God exists ;)
To see how bad this question-begging is, let's concoct it's alternative: if God does not exist, objective moral values don't exist, objective moral values don't exist (because God doesn't exist), therefore God doesn't exist -- it's just as "valid" you see -- you can't assume a premise as true to prove that premise! Logic just doesn't work that way! :D
cwisefool 1 year ago
"In the absence of God objective moral values just don't exist." (4:44) If we take this as true, then the "argument" at the beginning (0:32) is a mere question-begging (petitio principii) tautology! For it becomes 1) premise: object moral values exist only if God exists, 2) premise: objective moral values exist (which necessarily means by definition that God exists), conclusion: God exists -- or in shorter form: God exists therefore God exists ;)
cwisefool 1 year ago