The Moral Argument

[Grumpy Santa]

P1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do not exist.
C: God does not exist.

Damn, I proved that God does not exist. :shock:

see how simple it is it? Visak clearly stated that he rejects premise 2


why cant I get direct answers from everyone else?

Could I have been any more direct?

 

[leroy]

none is blue..........again, an other simple and direct answer.

You didn't answer the question asked Leroy.

If you don't answer, its not a "direct answer".

Which of the premises is bluest? Answer directly Leroy. :lol:

NONE


NO premise is bluer than the other.



take note, this is an example of a clear and direct answer.

 

[leroy]

Grumpy Santa

. While it's true that there are no objective morals, they're all subjective to individuals and tempered by family and cultures, this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a god.

Premise two is already false as mentioned.

Therefore conclusion cannot be logically reached.

[



Grumpy Santa an other atheist with the capacity to answer to a question

 

[leroy]

Could I have been any more direct?

thanks for your direct answer.

 

[MarsCydonia]

NO premise is bluer than the other.

take note, this is an example of a clear and direct answer.

So you should be able to get it then Leroy.

NO premises is truer/"likely more true" than the other. In fact, as people have repeated countless but for which you're too stupid to understand is that:
Something is either true or not true. There is no "more likely true". There's no 99% true/1%, there's not even 51% true/49% false.

And none of the premises have been demonstrated to be true.

The premises are either true or they are not. So when we say "None have been demonstrated to be true", a box of rocks would understand what this means, why can't you? Is the box of rocks more intelligent than you are?

 

[Visaki]

P1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values and duties do not exist.
C: God does not exist.

Damn, I proved that God does not exist. :shock:

see how simple it is it? Visak clearly stated that he rejects premise 2

why cant I get direct answers from everyone else?

True, I reject P2.

I'd also like to point out that I reject P1. The reason for that is because the source of the "objective morality" (even if we grant such a thing) doesn't have to be the Jeweish/Christian/Islamic god which is meant By the capitalized God. It could be Zeus, Jupiter or even some godhood that humanity has no idea of. Sure you can dodge that one by decapitalizating (not to be confused with decapitating) the "G" and moving the goalposts for your argument to a easier general undefined godhood. But can you defend why that source for your "objective morality" has to be a god? This leads you in the pickle of defining what makes a god (and for that, "objective morality") and how we can diffrentiate between a god and some other very powerful being (like, lets say, Cthrag Yaska or Sauron).

TL,DR: Affirming the consequent

 

[MarsCydonia]

I'd also like to point out that I reject P1. The reason for that is because the source of the "objective morality" (even if we grant such a thing) doesn't have to be the Jeweish/Christian/Islamic god which is meant By the capitalized God. It could be Zeus, Jupiter or even some godhood that humanity has no idea of. Sure you can dodge that one by decapitalizating (not to be confused with decapitating) the "G" and moving the goalposts for your argument to a easier general undefined godhood. But can you defend why that source for your "objective morality" has to be a god? This leads you in the pickle of defining what makes a god (and for that, "objective morality") and how we can diffrentiate between a god and some other very powerful being (like, lets say, Cthrag Yaska or Sauron).

TL,DR: Affirming the consequent

Not only that but think about what Leroy usually brings up with other arguments: platonism.
The philosophy that mathematical entities "exists" in a "third realm" or that they are transdendental in a sense. Well the same could be said of "objective moral values". So IF they were proven to exists (which no theists has done), the theists would have to prove that they can exists only because of "god".

 

[leroy]

NO premise is bluer than the other.

take note, this is an example of a clear and direct answer.

So you should be able to get it then Leroy.

NO premises is truer/"likely more true" than the other. In fact, as people have repeated countless but for which you're too stupid to understand is that:
Something is either true or not true. There is no "more likely true". There's no 99% true/1%, there's not even 51% true/49% false.

And none of the premises have been demonstrated to be true.

The premises are either true or they are not. So when we say "None have been demonstrated to be true", a box of rocks would understand what this means, why can't you? Is the box of rocks more intelligent than you are?

granted, none of the premises is absolutely and 100% certainly true, ..............but you can still have degrees of certainty, I think that there are good reasons to accept them, rejecting the conclusion implies that you have good reasons to reject at least one of the premises, I simply what to know which of these premises you think is wrong.


[

 

[leroy]

I'd also like to point out that I reject P1. The reason for that is because the source of the "objective morality" (even if we grant such a thing) doesn't have to be the Jeweish/Christian/Islamic god which is meant By the capitalized God. It could be Zeus, Jupiter or even some godhood that humanity has no idea of. Sure you can dodge that one by decapitalizating (not to be confused with decapitating) the "G" and moving the goalposts for your argument to a easier general undefined godhood. But can you defend why that source for your "objective morality" has to be a god? This leads you in the pickle of defining what makes a god (and for that, "objective morality") and how we can diffrentiate between a god and some other very powerful being (like, lets say, Cthrag Yaska or Sauron).

TL,DR: Affirming the consequent

granted, the moral argument does not lead you to the Christian God, it simply leads you to a god

 

[leroy]

I'd also like to point out that I reject P1. The reason for that is because the source of the "objective morality" (even if we grant such a thing) doesn't have to be the Jeweish/Christian/Islamic god which is meant By the capitalized God. It could be Zeus, Jupiter or even some godhood that humanity has no idea of. Sure you can dodge that one by decapitalizating (not to be confused with decapitating) the "G" and moving the goalposts for your argument to a easier general undefined godhood. But can you defend why that source for your "objective morality" has to be a god? This leads you in the pickle of defining what makes a god (and for that, "objective morality") and how we can diffrentiate between a god and some other very powerful being (like, lets say, Cthrag Yaska or Sauron).

TL,DR: Affirming the consequent

Not only that but think about what Leroy usually brings up with other arguments: platonism.
The philosophy that mathematical entities "exists" in a "third realm" or that they are transdendental in a sense. Well the same could be said of "objective moral values". So IF they were proven to exists (which no theists has done), the theists would have to prove that they can exists only because of "god".

if someone form this forum affirms that objective moral values are platonic objects, I would provide arguments against that idea.


but you believe that Platonism is logically absurd, so why did you even mentioned it?..............again you are just trolling



You are raising the bar unrealistically too high, not only should I provide absolute proof for the premises, I also have to disprove all the godless alternative explanations that have ever been imagined.


why don't you apply the same level of skepticism with other theories like evolution, relativity, atomic theory etc.?..

 

[MarsCydonia]

granted, none of the premises is absolutely and 100% certainly true, ..............but you can still have degrees of certainty, I think that there are good reasons to accept them, rejecting the conclusion implies that you have good reasons to reject at least one of the premises, I simply what to know which of these premises you think is wrong.

Sorry Leroy, I can't explain both to you and to a box a rocks and so far the box of rocks has shown better reasoning skills than you so it has a better chance of understanding.

It even has better reading comprehension

 

[Steelmage99]

You didn't answer the question asked Leroy.

If you don't answer, its not a "direct answer".

Which of the premises is bluest? Answer directly Leroy. :lol:

NONE


NO premise is bluer than the other.



take note, this is an example of a clear and direct answer.

It is not, leroy.
I asked which one is bluest. P1 or P2?

Why can you simply provide a straight answer?

 

[MarsCydonia]

if someone form this forum affirms that objective moral values are platonic objects, I would provide arguments against that idea.

but you believe that Platonism is logically absurd, so why did you even mentioned it?..............again you are just trolling

You are raising the bar unrealistically too high, not only should I provide absolute proof for the premises, I also have to disprove all the godless alternative explanations that have ever been imagined.

why don't you apply the same level of skepticism with other theories like evolution, relativity, atomic theory etc.?...

Why haven't you started by showing the premises to be true Leroy?

I can't wait to see what idiotic thing you'll come up with.

If the box of rocks or William Lane Craig can't do it, what makes you think you can? They're both much smarter than you are. :lol:

 

[leroy]

[

It is not, leroy.
I asked which one is bluest. P1 or P2?

Why can you simply provide a straight answer?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

do you honestly think that you are making a good point?


ok granted, you can answer P1 P2 or none, in my original question



besides, as I already explained, your question is not analogous to mine, as I said before in my argument to deny the conclusion implies that you think that at least one of the premises is wrong, this is not analogous to your stupid bluer BS.

 

[leroy]

if someone form this forum affirms that objective moral values are platonic objects, I would provide arguments against that idea.

but you believe that Platonism is logically absurd, so why did you even mentioned it?..............again you are just trolling

You are raising the bar unrealistically too high, not only should I provide absolute proof for the premises, I also have to disprove all the godless alternative explanations that have ever been imagined.

why don't you apply the same level of skepticism with other theories like evolution, relativity, atomic theory etc.?...

Why haven't you started by showing the premises to be true Leroy?

I can't wait to see what idiotic thing you'll come up with.

If the box of rocks or William Lane Craig can't do it, what makes you think you can? They're both much smarter than you are. :lol:

again, I can not prove them to your satisfaction as I said before you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.


you are already familiar with what WLC would say, I would both premises with the same arguments, I wouldn't add anything new


but all that is irrelevant, whether if I prove these premises or not it irrelevant, I am still asking a valid question ..............................which of the premises do you think is wrong?

 

[MarsCydonia]

again, I can not prove them to your satisfaction as I said before you are raising the bar unrealistically too high.

Showing that they are true is unrealistically too high?

My bar is not too high Leroy, its your that is moronically too low. Not unexpected as we see you believe things just because "the feels". :lol:

but all that is irrelevant, whether if I prove these premises or not it irrelevant, I am still asking a valid question ..............................which of the premises do you think is wrong?

The box of rocks understood Leroy, is the box of rocks smarter than you are?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Since the connection between God and objective moral values and duties is a completely fabricated one I can do you one better.

P1. If God does not exist, then Santa Claus does not exist. (no Santa without Christmas - no Christmas without God)
P2. Santa Claus does not exist.
C. Therefore God does not exist.

Hey, leroy?!?! Which of these premises has the bluest colour?

You can of course only answer P1 or P2. If you answer anything else, I will accuse you of not providing a clear answer.
After all, you taught me that. :roll: :lol:

Unfortunately, you two are affirming the consequent.
Premise one states that Santa claus cannot exists if God doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that if santa claus does notexists, god doesn't exists.

I gave the example of the premise that states "If someone doesn't own a Forth Knox, he/she isn't rich" which basically means that ALL those who do not own a Forth Knox are not rich, but that doesn't mean that all those that are not rich, owns a Fort Knox. All humans are mammals but not all mammals are humans is another one.

To fix the problem:
P1. If God does not exist, then Santa Claus does not exist.
P2. Santa clause does not exist.
C. Therefore God does not exist.

There is a subtle difference in the first premise, but it is a huge difference when it comes to validity. This is now logically valid, but not sound of course. There is a difference between validity and soundness.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/14/Affirming-the-Consequent

And also, Leroy, just realize I made a mistake. Leroy is not committing "affirming the consequent" fallacy.
You use "modus Tollens" or denying the consequent, which is logically valid.

So yes, your argument is valid, but is it sound? In order to be sound you have to demonstrate the premises so start demonstrating the premises.

Fixed that for you.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

I'd also like to point out that I reject P1. The reason for that is because the source of the "objective morality" (even if we grant such a thing) doesn't have to be the Jeweish/Christian/Islamic god which is meant By the capitalized God. It could be Zeus, Jupiter or even some godhood that humanity has no idea of. Sure you can dodge that one by decapitalizating (not to be confused with decapitating) the "G" and moving the goalposts for your argument to a easier general undefined godhood. But can you defend why that source for your "objective morality" has to be a god? This leads you in the pickle of defining what makes a god (and for that, "objective morality") and how we can diffrentiate between a god and some other very powerful being (like, lets say, Cthrag Yaska or Sauron).

TL,DR: Affirming the consequent

granted, the moral argument does not lead you to the Christian God, it simply leads you to a god

As said, you have to actually show that the source of the "objective morality" has to be a god. Why can't Cthrag Yaska be the source of the "objective morality"?

Or are you just defining "objective morality" as something that can only come from a god?

 

[leroy]

MarsCydonia:
What you fail to understand is that regardless if I present evidence or arguments or not, it is still completely valid to ask questions like>...... do you believe in objective morality?

this is a yes or no question, so why wont you answer ?

My bar is not too high Leroy, its your that is moronically too low. :lol:

you seem to be implying that I need to proof with 100% certainty each of the premises in order for them to be accepted by you.............this would be raising the bar unrealistically too high

if you are not holding that position, please let me know and I will apologize for misrepresenting you.


as a side note......you believe in will (human choice) even though there is no evidence for it, so the lack of evidence shouldn't be a big obstacle for you

Not unexpected as we see you believe things just because "the feels".

granted, I accept things like will *(human choice ) the existence of a physical world and objective morality because it " feels " that these things are real, and there is no evidence against them.

that for me is enough to grant their existence ...............you may or may not agree with this kind of reasoning, but it is still a fact hat asking questions like do you believe in objective morality?[/is still a valid question.


]

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ex recto blind assertion: Check
Abuse of the material conditional: Check
Affirming the consequent: Check
Failure to understand what morality is: Check

Looks like somebody's been drinking the Kalamity Kool Aid again.

Morality is not, nor can it be, objective. Neither is it subjective. This is a false dichotomy.

I've covered this at length and in great detail elsewhere.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.com/2016/06/morality-and-false-dichotomy.html