Formal and Informal Logic

Yes I know what you are doing.
The problem is that you can't actually progress that far with the premises that you have started with.
Your argument runs out of steam as soon as you conclude that evolution is incompatible with the fall.
These two cannot both be premises for further arguement since they are (by your own reasoning) mutually exclusive.
You either have to accept that the fall is true or that evolution is true but never both.
Can you make the rest of your argument on these footings?Think it through stepwise. One baby step at a time.let's try laying it out again.Premise ----> God exists and is the Christian God.Did the fall happen? (remember you already proved them mutually exclusive)
If YES then Evolution DID NOT happen
If NO then Evolution DID happen (or rather could have happened.Do you understand the logical dilema you now face?
It is not possible to pursue a logical "moral arguement" against God because you have already excluded one or the other of the lines of evidence that you wanted to use to prove it.IF the fall then NO evolution. ---> no pre-fall suffering
IF NOT the fall then suffering was NOT introduced at that point but has always been the nature of the universe. ---> God is 'un-necessary" but cannot really be called immoral or blamed for any naturally occurring suffering.

Of course. This whole problem is made up by you. Robin has no problem with it. Gad you're patronizing. Insulting.He DOES accept that either the fall is true or that evolution is true and never both. At the moment he believes evolution is true.Can't you follow a hypothetical train of thought?

But I didn't HAVE to mention either evolution or the Fall to make the basic argument. I could have just mentioned the suffering in the world.My point is that the absence of God pulls the moral rug out from under our feet. We can't have it both ways. We can't go around saying that our morality is subjective but on the other hand judging that God is cruel. That's the main point. That's the issue I was really interested in.

I'm most certainly not attempting to be. Maybe it was a bad choice of words. if so then I'm sorry if I offended Robin. I beg to differ. here is part of his post from the thread linked to in the OP It clearly shows both concepts co-existing The thing is if there was no evolution before the fall then where does this pain come from? Does it even exist?
And likewise if there was no fall and evolution is the sole mover then we can't blame God.Either way the "moral arguement against God" is dead in the water if these two concepts are mutually exclusive.And before you go on to tell me what else Robin is arguing or what he believes in, I know full well that he is also making the point that the "moral arguement against God" is flawed. It is just that from a formal logic point of view, his argument is also flawed. And this coming after accusing me of being patronising and insulting. At least I did it accidentally.

You are absolutely right. You didn't have to mention either of them.
The fact that you did was what caused the potential confusion.
You may not have meant them to be premises on which your argument was based but that is the way it came across.Let's take another step of the logical process. It is by now obvious that these two premises kind of screw up the logical outcome so let's go back and throw them out.All you are really then left with is the existence of the Christian God and the fact that there is suffering in the world. Does that sound about right?So the "moral argument agianst God" goes something like this (correct me if I'm wrong)Premises

• God exists (the Christian kind)
• Suffering exists

And this leads to the conclusion that God is cruelI still have some issues with reaching that conclusion from a logical progression. For one thing we may need to clarify the "Christian God" definition. Are we to include the premise that "God is all Good" which is a pretty strongly held belief of Christians (as far as I am aware)I'm not being awkward here I just want every step of the logic to be crystal clear so no tiny detail can be left out.Edited by PurpleYouko, : I keep messing up the formatting

It leads to the conclusion that no such God exists. Yes, of course, the standard definition (not just Christian either, but "Western.") All good, all powerful, all knowing.

I know that's where you are heading. I'm just trying to break it down into logical steps. Great. Our premises are in place and all the unnecessary crap is out of the way. Now we get down to the real argument.Premises (sorry to keep rehashing this but I'm just a bit anal that way )

• God Exists and is ALL EVERYTHING
• Suffering exists in the world

It is now somewhat difficult to frame a question that doesn't directly contradict the premise. I can't say "Does this make God Cruel?" since the premise clearly states that he is ALL GOOD.The only meaningful question that can really be asked is this.
"Are these two premises compatible with each other?"
In other words "Is it possible for suffering to exist in a universe created by an ALL EVERYTHING God?"
Also remember that we kicked out the "FALL" premise so that cannot be used as an excuse for the suffering without once again redefining the premises.On the face of it the logical answer is NO.So this is where the "moral argument against God" comes in.Even if we do answer NO then we have to go back and change one or both of our premises.
Which one are we most certain is true?
Well we can see the suffering every day so we know that one is correct, so that means that the other must be wrong.
It now becomes necessary to redefine the nature of God since if God exists and is cruel or at the very least uncaring, then we have no logical issue. Now at his point I cease to follow you. I don't see why it is impossible for a cruel, mean spirited God to exist.
I don't see why we can't have a "Scientist" God who created us and is watching his experiment unfold. When is the last time that you got sentimentally attached to a petri dish full of microbes? When you wipe out a few million germs with a mouthfull of mouthwash, are you being cruel?There is no logical connection between saying that God is cruel and saying he does not exist.

Well, the standard God wouldn't exist. We've limited the argument to the standard God.

Even if we make it to this point I don't agree with this assertion.
I do not see our morals as being any more subjective in the absense of God as they are if he exists.There is a perfectly logical reson for morals to exist that does not require any God or justification.I see morals as an inherrant part of our genetic makeup, refined to their present level by millions of years of evolution through which the Human race had to learn to live in comunities in order to survive.
Those who did not conform would have been kicked out for the good of the tribe. They probably would not survive topass on their genes.
Over time, the genetic code of the individuals in the groups would have evolved to the point where the group comes first in order that their genes could be passed on to the next generation. Uhhhh No.My response would be.
"Because I and the other couple of billion inhabitants of this planet, are genetically coded to kick your ass out of society if you do, so that your defective genes and anti-social tendencies are not passed on to any more generations, thus keeping the gene pool pure and strong."That's evolution for you

Maybe I'm powerful and not afraid of other people. Why should I obey this rule?

Agreed.I don't think that is really what is meant by the "moral argument against God" though.
I think the implication is that NO god exists and that conclusion cannot logically be reached.As I said, when your premises are mutually exclusive or your logic reaches some kind of paradox, you are forced to re-examine the premises of teh argument then try again after modifying them. That is how we reach the best approximation of the truth that we can hope to reach (by logic).

So you are Ghengis Khan?
Doesn't change anything.
It just means that you will soon be the guy at the top who enforces the same laws that you once broke.
Face it, it is going to be in your own self interest to make damn sure nobody else is tough enough to challenge you. You will create armies of law keepers to round up others like you used to be and put them in prisons or execute them.
You may well be the odd one out but in keeping your own butt safe, you will inadvertently make society in general a better place to be.
Once again, individuals with anti-social tendencies will be removed from society only this time with a lot more force.

Or maybe I'm just an ordinary guy who is certain he can murder a particular person and get away with it and profit by it. Why shouldn't I do it? Let's suppose I CAN get away with it.

Millions of years of selective pressure in your ancestry. What more do you need?Maybe you are some kind of genetic throwback though. People DO comit murders and some of them DO get away with it. I have no intention of trying to reason with you from a moral standpoint.It is just that the majority have a conscience and a built in regard for the health and welfare of others. Even hardened criminals often still care about some others.

My point was that one CAN'T reason from a moral standpoint. Therefore, all moral rules are groundless.