The Moral Argument

[leroy]

Not a very impressive god. You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. It should be smart enough to know what that would be for any individual, shouldn't it?

that is an irrelevant comment don't you think?


there are many explanations that theist would provide to explain the lack of overwarming and indisputable evidence for the existence of God, feel free to open a new thread on it, and I will comment on it



just a for your personal reflection, if you are a male, as you claim to be in your profile, why don't you provide more evidence for it? why don't you sent pictures of yourself and your genitals, your ID, or a study that shows that you have a Y chromosome to prove that you are a male?.............why don't you make your maleness more evidently true?

BTW, I am a hard skeptic, so after sending the pictures, I will be argue that you are not the guy in the pictures , then I will argue you are using Photoshop to full us, and then I would argue that your gentiles are fake or that the study on the Y chromosome I fake.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Not a very impressive god. You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. It should be smart enough to know what that would be for any individual, shouldn't it?

that is an irrelevant comment don't you think?

No, not really...

there are many explanations that theist would provide to explain the lack of overwarming and indisputable evidence for the existence of God, feel free to open a new thread on it, and I will comment on it

Excuses, explanations, same difference.

just a for your personal reflection, if you are a male, as you claim to be in your profile, why don't you provide more evidence for it? why don't you sent pictures of yourself and your genitals, your ID, or a study that shows that you have a Y chromosome to prove that you are a male?.............why don't you make your maleness more evidently true?

BTW, I am a hard skeptic, so after sending the pictures, I will be argue that you are not the guy in the pictures , then I will argue you are using Photoshop to full us, and then I would argue that your gentiles are fake or that the study on the Y chromosome I fake.

Fortunately, to my knowledge at least, there are no religions being based upon my maleness. So while I'm sure you lie awake at night wondering just how manly I am I don't feel compelled to demonstrate that. Now, once the tributes start coming in I could be convinced to change my mind...

 

[Visaki]

just a for your personal reflection, if you are a male, as you claim to be in your profile, why don't you provide more evidence for it? why don't you sent pictures of yourself and your genitals, your ID, or a study that shows that you have a Y chromosome to prove that you are a male?.............why don't you make your maleness more evidently true?

BTW, I am a hard skeptic, so after sending the pictures, I will be argue that you are not the guy in the pictures , then I will argue you are using Photoshop to full us, and then I would argue that your gentiles are fake or that the study on the Y chromosome I fake.

There is a famous axiom that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But it can also be said that trivial claims require trivial evidence (I might even have come up with that, so if I did you better give me credit).

Leroy, in his usual manner, mucks up what being a skeptic really should be about.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

There is a famous axiom that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But it can also be said that trivial claims require trivial evidence (I might even have come up with that, so if I did you better give me credit).

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]... but only if AronRa does not accept trivial evidence for trivial claims.

 

[thenexttodie]

You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. ?

You obviously have never been married.

 

[Rumraket]

so which of these 2 premises you find more probably wrong than true? just answer 1 or 2


I wont ever get a direct answer right?

Both. I reject both premises. Outright.

They're not just probably wrong. I would make the much stronger claim that given the definition of "objective fact" that you supplied with your post, they're provably and essentially completely wrong in every way I can make rational sense of them under that definition of objective fact.

There might be another sense of the word objective in which one or both of the presises are true, but they're not given the definition offered.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. ?

You obviously have never been married.

That may come as a surprise to my wife of 20 years and our kids.

 

[Laurens]

The whole moral argument is bollocks.

You might as well say if God exists then God exists. I've never seen a coherent explanation for how objective moral values necessitate the existence of God nor have I seen a coherent argument for the existence of objective moral values. William Lane Craig basically just says we all know they exist. Thats not a fucking argument.

Objective moral values exist, we all know it, if you deny that well you're wrong. I win.

 

[Rumraket]

The whole moral argument is bollocks.

You might as well say if God exists then God exists. I've never seen a coherent explanation for how objective moral values necessitate the existence of God nor have I seen a coherent argument for the existence of objective moral values. William Lane Craig basically just says we all know they exist. Thats not a fucking argument.

Objective moral values exist, we all know it, if you deny that well you're wrong. I win.

Yep. exactly.

 

[thenexttodie]

You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. ?

You obviously have never been married.

That may come as a surprise to my wife of 20 years and our kids.

:lol: Congratulations

 

[Sparhafoc]

You might as well say if God exists then God exists.

Although you'd have to end that statement by shouting KAZZZZAM (or is it Kalam?) then throwing a smoke bomb at your feet and disappearing in the ensuing confusion.

There is form to think of after all, even for Creationists!

 

[MarsCydonia]

To paly semantics means that you are making a big deal out of definitions and words, instead of focusing on the argument.

For example the claim is that OMV exist independently of human opinion, whether if you what to call this Objective morality or give it an other name is irrelevant.

Besides I am not using the term objective in any unusual way, objective in most contexts is defined as independent from human opinion, I am not using any wild definition.

Ok, so let's take this from the "Slavery in the bible discussion" thread and let's concentrate on Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's "argument":

Point #1:
P1- Leroy's want to claim objective moral values exists
P2- Leroy's claim god has subjective moral values
P3- Leroy's calls god's subjective moral values "objective moral values" because they're god's and not men.
C- Therefore objective moral values (who are actually subjective) exists

Is Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's argument any better than this?

Point #2:
As stated previously "Leroy's objective" isn't objective, it's subjective. If Leroy-the-slavery-apologist wasn't so ignorant, he would realize that " objective in most contexts is defined as independent from human opinion" is completely false.

Here's another way to demonstrate the existence of objective moral values that would make it so much easier for Leroy-the-slavery-apologist
P1- Dogs have moral values
P2- Moral values are objective if they are not human opinions
P3- Dogs are not human
C- Therefore objective moral values exist

 

[MarsCydonia]

Taken from the "Slavery in the bible discussion" thread, since it is more on topic here:

1 It is not my fault, philosophers use the definition of OMV that I am using, I am not the author of the argument. Words are not important as long as the author makes clear what he means by those words.

Except that philosopher's do not use Leroy's objective, they in fact reject in favor of a sound definition. We'll see where I had to propose an exemple to Leroy where he fail to grasp the issue.

2 I honestly don't see any meaningful difference between my definition and your definition

Of course Leroy didn't. Which is why I had to point out to him that if apes had moral values, then by definition they would be Leroy's objective moral values.
It is simple really... Except if you're Leroy-minded of course. We'll see it soon.

3 Whether if you what to call them OMV or give it an other name Is irrelevant, why don't you simply answer this> do you claim that some moral values (or moral truths) exist independently of human opinion?

No. But that was Leroy's claim, still unsupported in this thread and as well as unsupported in multiple other threads.

You would think that someone that fails to support a claim would cease to make it... Except if, once again, you're Leroy-minded.

4 I haven't meat any theist who claims that moral values or moral truths are "Gods subjective opinion" it seems to be an other case where you misunderstood a concept (in this case divine command) but in any case it really doesn't matter, objective realities can have a subjective origin, for example in pokar a royal flush is objectively better than a poker, but this objective truth had a subjective origin (the subjective opinion of the guy who invented the game)

so even if you show that OMV had a subjective origin, (say Gods opinion) that would not disprove the idea that MV are objective

Perhaps a lot of theists play the same game as Leroy does:
Human opinion: subjective because Leroy's objective is "independent from human opinion"
God's opinion: objective because god is not human and Leroy's objective is "independent from human opinion"

Because Leroy's objective moral values is "a metric independent of human opinion", so any metric independent from humans would be "objective" wouldn't it? Which is why theists value this "definition" because they can then proclaim god's command, as in divine command, to be objective rather than subjective.

But the consequence?
A dog's opinion: objective because a dog is not human and Leroy's objective is "independent from human opinion"
Alien: objective because an alien is not human and Leroy's objective is "independent from human opinion"
Etc.

And as pointed by HWIN, no a royal flush is "not objectively better" particularly using Leroy's objective because a royal flush "being better" is not "independent from human opinion". The rules of poker are entirely subjective to an agreement between the players about what the rules. In a lowball variant of poker, a royal flush is the worst hand a player could possibly have.

according Leroy's objective, nobody "has" OMV, OMV are just there, nobody "owns them"

Again, since Leroy's objective moral values is "a metric independent of human opinion", everyone other than humans would own their Leroy's objective moral values.

Leroy didn't ran from the conversation, he simply got tired of repeating the same things over and over again.

:lol:

"Leroy got tired of repeating the same things over and over again"? Well, this is something that Leroy always does:
1. Make an assertion
2. Attempt weak and fauly justification
3. Ignore all criticism showing justification as weak and faulty
4. Repeat 1 through 3
5. Once 1 through 3 have been repeated enough, run but claim "tired".

 

[Sparhafoc]

"Leroy got tired of repeating the same things over and over again"? Well, this is something that Leroy always does:
1. Make an assertion
2. Attempt weak and fauly justification
3. Ignore all criticism showing justification as weak and faulty
4. Repeat 1 through 3
5. Once 1 through 3 have been repeated enough, run but claim "tired".

I fear you're missing the parts where he tries to pretend its other people's responsibility to materially support their rejection of his unsupported assertion.

Then there are the bits where he lies about what others said - you know.... all the bits!

You also didn't make note of his claim to knowledge about everything, always in the complete absence of any support, but like how he above claims to be accurately representing unnamed 'philosophers' which he can't cite because what they say isn't anything remotely like what LEROY says, and will instead act as if his bullshit is the unquestionable consensus.

 

[leroy]

Point #1:
P1- Leroy's want to claim objective moral values exists
P2- Leroy's claim god has subjective moral values
P3- Leroy's calls god's subjective moral values "objective moral values" because they're god's and not men.
C- Therefore objective moral values (who are actually subjective) exists

P1 Yes
P2 No, but irrelevant for the sake of this discussion we can assume that I believe that OMV are Gods subjective opinion
P3 Irrelevant, as WHN noted, something can exist objectively, even if it had a subjective origin


therefore, I have no idea why you think you are making a relevant point.