The logical syllogism was valid the primes's were coherent, the terms were defined. I obviously need work when communicating with atheists.....
As I mentioned earlier in this thread....yes, that may all be true. Without predjudice (as I haven't sat down carefully to consider all the ramifications), your argument is valid in construction, yes; and if your axioms are assumed as self-evident then yes: your argument is sound. Hurrah, you win the debate! Go back to your fellow Christians and boast of your victory!
But you are also right in that - yes, you DO need work communicating with atheists, since your axioms are NOT all self-evident and agreed by all. Sure - for those who believe, this argument is a winner.....but then who cares about an argument that only works if you BELIEVE it is true? My argument about cats works if you just BELIEVE all cats are blue, but so what?
There IS nothing wrong with your argument (subject to my caveat above) - but you have NOT demonstrated the truth of your axioms. Had I been curious girl, frankly my first response would have been no more than to say:
1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Not sure I accept this - can you explain how this is true?[/color]
In other words, it'd be quite a while before I even started the debate as you had gone nowhere near demonstrating that your axioms were true.