Morality. The all but inevitable subject when debating an apologist. They continually claim that objective moral values cannot exist without a god. Okay. Why not? I would argue that objective moral values don't exist.

Okay, so you don't expect me to just say the same things that other people say... You expect me to give logical reasons why. Well, I'm here to do just that.

The moral argument for the existence of god goes like this:

1)If god does not exist then moral objective values do not exist.
2) moral objective values do exist.
3) therefore god exists.

The first logical fallacy is begging the question. It may be tough to spot, but it's in premise number one. Note that the wording is not: if objective moral values exist then god exists. But rather if they don't then god doesn't. Then they go on to assume that objective moral values do exist. And I would also reject that premise based on the fact that that had not been demonstrated. So... We can grant them the first one of we want, and ignore the fallacy within. What do you mean by objective? If you mean that moral values are set by god then god can change them if he so wishes... But that would be subjective. Subjective in respect to god. But if there was a standard beyond god that he could not change... Then he wouldn't be necessary. However that would mean that all of us would draw the same conclusions about every moral decision we ever made?

So if both your dog and your neighbor that you hate were drowning in a pool and you could only save one of them... Who would you save? Do you value human life more than a dog's life? Do you value your dog more than your neighbor that you hate? I doubt all the answers to this would be the same. But I have more...

Is it not true that societies have deemed certain things morally okay at one time and then later changed? Slavery in America... How is that objective?

So the apologists would go back to the idea that good changed his standard... Wait... How is that objective? Unless you define objective as:pretty much universal but still able to be changed and still subject to the opinion of different people... It's not objective. So there's the major problem with the argument. And that's ignoring the fallacy of premise one.

If anyone would like a little more detail than this just ask and I will provide it as soon as possible. I'm sorry I can't do the most detailed epistemological analysis at the moment, but just the same, I think I made my point. However, in short controlled bursts I can still go much further of you wish.