The Moral Argument? What Rubbish!

Alright, this one was a long time coming I have seen this argument used so many times that it makes me sick. I thought I would write about it here because it really irks the hell out of me when some smug Christian thinks he is an intellectual heavyweight when he uses this or some variation of this argument.

So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.

1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.

Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.

The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.

My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."

My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.

Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)

With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.

The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.