in order for our lives to have meaning we need to be punished or rewarded
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punished/rewarded/meaning.
Please explain the difference between these two statements and how either of them is not a circular reasoning fallacy?
I accept your tautology and continue to be completely disinterested in some god(s) moral dictates and unconvinced that they are useful in understanding WHY something is moral or immoral whether any god(s) exists or not. I feel this is a structural issue with your argument. Please repair this leg.
My argument (table)
IF there exists any morality/punishment/reward/meaning (leg one) and IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg two) THEN we are forced to assess morality/punishment/reward/meaning through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg three)
IF and ONLY IF the premesis are true THEN the conclusion is a logical necessity.
IF you see any structural issues with my premises THEN please explain exactly what the structural flaw is.