The Moral Argument

[surreptitious57]

Premise 1 If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist
Premise 2 Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion Therefore God exists

The non existence of God would not automatically be evidence of no objective morality
The existence of God would also not automatically be evidence of objective morality

The non existence of God and of objective morality could be entirely coincidental
The existence of God and of objective morality could also be entirely coincidental


But regardless of poorly constructed syllogisms and of whether or not God actually exists there is no such thing as objective
morality. It can be either subjective or inter subjective. But nothing else. Asserting it is objective does not actually make it so

 

[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 ?

"Do you believe in objective morality?" was not your original question. Are you that much of an _____ that you cannot even comprehend your own words when you read them?

If I say objective morality has not demonstrated to be true and that even WLC and the box of rocks have not demonstrated them to be true and that they are much smarter than you are, then of course I don't believe in objective morality as apologists use the term.

The box of rocks understood Leroy, is the box of rock smarter than you are? Well, with the amount of times I've asked this question, we have our answer: the box of rocks is indeed smarter.

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

As a side note, you're misrepresenting me and being an _____, again. How can you not understand that choice, will and "Leroy's definition of will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom" are not interchangeable like they are for you?

Wait, I know the answer to this question. Because you're an idiot who deludes himself into thinking we wrote what he wants instead of facing the reality of what we actually wrote.

We've been over this but still now comes the part where you ask me to repeat myself... But I won't because if you were too _____ to understand the 129 previous times you will not understand now.

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 ..............

After all your comments here, there is little doubt that you are scum, you're a snake and you're a terrible person.

But imagine if I said you're all these things, not because of the comments you leave but because it "feels" like you are and there is no evidence against it, that would also be reason enough to accept them, under Leroy-mindedness, wouldn't it?

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

Third page of comments in and you still have not shown anything to demonstrate the premises are true.

You are just a troll.

 

[leroy]

.

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

As a side note, you're misrepresenting me and being an _____, again. How can you not understand that choice, will and "Leroy's definition of will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom" are not interchangeable like they are for you?

even though you have changed your world view like 5 times in the last month, the last time you claimed that to grant human choice

I clearly and unambiguously said that I grant human choices.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=61&p=178021


but at any point in time you can change your world view once again and affirm that you no longer grant human choice.


given that you grant human choice and given that there is no evidence for human choice, it is fare to conclude that the lack of evidence shouldn't be an obstacle for you.

After all your comments here, there is little doubt that you are scum, you're a snake and you're a terrible person.

how can I be a terrible person if you don't even believe in objective morality?

If I say objective morality has not demonstrated to be true and that even WLC and the box of rocks have not demonstrated them to be true and that they are much smarter than you are, then of course I don't believe in objective morality as apologists use the term.

Third page of comments in and you still have not shown anything to demonstrate the premises are true.

You are just a troll.

because you are asking for 100% certainty, you are demanding absolute proof, I cant do it, I openly admit that I cant prove any of the premises using your standards.

 

[MarsCydonia]

even though you have changed your world view like 5 times in the last month, the last time you claimed that to grant human choice

but at any point in time you can change your world view once again and affirm that you no longer grant human choice.

given that you grant human choice and given that there is no evidence for human choice, it is fare to conclude that the lack of evidence shouldn't be an obstacle for you.

I've never changed my position about human choices. Everytime you bring up another person's worldview you always get it wrong Leroy. Leroy's fantasy of "human choices" may not have evidence, or certainly does not have coherence because you're an idiot, but what I explained about human choices does. Stop living in your fantasies and deal with what people write, not what you imagine they write.

how can I be a terrible person if you don't even believe in objective morality?

Not just terrible Leroy, you are scum, you are a snake and you prove it constantly and there's no need of objective morality for that. You're just too stupid to understand what morality actually is and you don't have enough sense to figure that part out (unsurprising because you never do).

Because you are asking for 100% certainty, you are demanding absolute proof, I cant do it, I openly admit that I cant prove any of the premises using your standards.

Will you ask the wizard for some courage, cowardly Leroy? You need to demonstrate the premises are true. That's the standard for every and all arguments. That I demand "100% absolute proof is another one of your escapist fantasy rather than dealing with what is written. Reality is such an inconvenience for you, isn't it?

And not only that, demonstrating that the premises are true should have been part of your first comment but we're now at the third page. If you never could demonstrate any of the premises as true, and it appears you have no intention to do so either, you were just trolling and you have just openly admitted that you're a bottom-feeding troll.

 

[leroy]

even though you have changed your world view like 5 times in the last month, the last time you claimed that to grant human choice

but at any point in time you can change your world view once again and affirm that you no longer grant human choice.

given that you grant human choice and given that there is no evidence for human choice, it is fare to conclude that the lack of evidence shouldn't be an obstacle for you.

I've never changed my position about human choices. Everytime you bring up another person's worldview you always get it wrong Leroy. Leroy's fantasy of "human choices" may not have evidence, or certainly does not have coherence because you're an idiot, but what I explained about human choices does. Stop living in your fantasies and deal with what people write, not what you imagine they write.

how can I be a terrible person if you don't even believe in objective morality?

Not just terrible Leroy, you are scum, you are a snake and you prove it constantly and there's no need of objective morality for that. You're just too stupid to understand what morality actually is and you don't have enough sense to figure that part out (unsurprising because you never do).

Because you are asking for 100% certainty, you are demanding absolute proof, I cant do it, I openly admit that I cant prove any of the premises using your standards.

Will you ask the wizard for some courage, cowardly Leroy? You need to demonstrate the premises are true. That's the standard for every and all arguments. That I demand "100% absolute proof is another one of your escapist fantasy rather than dealing with what is written. Reality is such an inconvenience for you, isn't it?

And not only that, demonstrating that the premises are true should have been part of your first comment but we're now at the third page. If you never could demonstrate any of the premises as true, and it appears you have no intention to do so either, you were just trolling and you have just openly admitted that you're a bottom-feeding troll.

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


ok given that you believe in human choice and given that you claim to have evidence for human choice........why don't you present such evidence.



if you do that ....I

1 would apologize for misrepresenting your view

2 I would learn about how to prove an assertion

3 given 2, I would try to prove my assertions on premise 1 and premise 2

///////////////////////


my position is that I cant prove premise 1 nor premise 2 with certainty....but there are good reasons to accept them, my arguments would be the same arguments that WLC would use, you are already familiar with his arguments, so what should I add?



just for the record......given that you don't believe in objective morality,

I am terrible person (and all that stuff) according to your own personal opinion, I have a different opinion and none of us would be wrong.

 

[leroy]

Premise 1 If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist
Premise 2 Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion Therefore God exists

The non existence of God would not automatically be evidence of no objective morality
The existence of God would also not automatically be evidence of objective morality

The non existence of God and of objective morality could be entirely coincidental
The existence of God and of objective morality could also be entirely coincidental


But regardless of poorly constructed syllogisms and of whether or not God actually exists there is no such thing as objective
morality. It can be either subjective or inter subjective. But nothing else. Asserting it is objective does not actually make it so

even though both premises are controversial and cant be proven with certainty I find them more probably true than wrong.


P1, it is clear that if God doesn't exists we would be like animals, nd most people would agree that animals are not moral agents and have no objective moral values,


for example when a dog bites an other dog, he is not being morally wrong, he would be simply presenting inconvenient behavior, the same would be true for humans.


inconvenient behavior > any action that prevents or limits the propagation of genes.

in a society where dogs bite and harm each other, many individuals would die, genes would propagate inefficiently, and eventually this society would disappear.


as Dawkins puts it.

there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

or in other words, if God doesn't exists why would we be different from other animals, why would morality be fundamentally different? most people would agree that animals don't have objective morality, and most people would agree that if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be a meaningful difference between humans and animals. ........so even if I cant prove P1 with certainty, most people would grant it.



Premise 2
almost everybody would agree that somethings are really wrong, things like rapping are wrong regardless if these actions are inconvenient behavior or not no sane person would ever argue that rape is wrong because it limits the propagation of genes in fact it could be the other way around, maybe rapping is good for the propagation of genes, but it would be irrelevant. rapping would still be wrong, simply because it is wrong.



Again if you are a Verificationist I cant prove that rapping is wrong, nor that objective moral values exist, it simply seems that moral values exist, in the same way it seems that there is a physical world around me, none of this claims can be verified but in the absence of evidence against them it is perfectly rational to trust your experience.


every time an atheist affirms that it is wrong to indoctrinate children, or the atrocities that the Catholic Church has made (rape, corruption, murder etc.) are wrong, they are affirming objetive morality,

Many atheist claim to deny the existence of moral values but few (if any) live their daily life as if that affirmation where true, we all judge people and actions as if there where objective moral values,




premise 1 and premise 2 have not been proven, but most people grant them, and there are good reasons to accept them. and I see no good reason to reject them.......

 

[MarsCydonia]

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

ok given that you believe in human choice and given that you claim to have evidence for human choice........why don't you present such evidence

In others, you're asking me to repeat myself, again.

Why are you so damn lazy Leroy? Why does everyone have to indulge your goldfish memory?

my position is that I cant prove premise 1 nor premise 2 with certainty....but there are good reasons to accept them, my arguments would be the same arguments that WLC would use, you are already familiar with his arguments, so what should I add?

Well this is another one of these words that is used interchangeably, isn't it?
Leroy' "good" reasons vs everyone else completely moronic reasons.

just for the record......given that you don't believe in objective morality,

I am terrible person (and all that stuff) according to your own personal opinion, I have a different opinion and none of us would be wrong.

That is plain stupid.

even though both premises are controversial and cant be proven with certainty I find them more probably true than wrong.

P1, it is clear that if God doesn't exists we would be like animals, nd most people would agree that animals are not moral agents and have no objective moral values,

for example when a dog bites an other dog, he is not being morally wrong, he would be simply presenting inconvenient behavior, the same would be true for humans.

inconvenient behavior > any action that prevents or limits the propagation of genes.

in a society where dogs bite and harm each other, many individuals would die, genes would propagate inefficiently, and eventually this society would disappear.

as Dawkins puts it.

there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference

or in other words, if God doesn't exists why would we be different from other animals, why would morality be fundamentally different? most people would agree that animals don't have objective morality, and most people would agree that if God doesn't exist there wouldn't be a meaningful difference between humans and animals. ........so even if I cant prove P1 with certainty, most people would grant it.

Premise 2
almost everybody would agree that somethings are really wrong, things like rapping are wrong regardless if these actions are inconvenient behavior or not no sane person would ever argue that rape is wrong because it limits the propagation of genes in fact it could be the other way around, maybe rapping is good for the propagation of genes, but it would be irrelevant. rapping would still be wrong, simply because it is wrong.

Again if you are a Verificationist I cant prove that rapping is wrong, nor that objective moral values exist, it simply seems that moral values exist, in the same way it seems that there is a physical world around me, none of this claims can be verified but in the absence of evidence against them it is perfectly rational to trust your experience.


every time an atheist affirms that it is wrong to indoctrinate children, or the atrocities that the Catholic Church has made (rape, corruption, murder etc.) are wrong, they are affirming objetive morality,

Many atheist claim to deny the existence of moral values but few (if any) live their daily life as if that affirmation where true, we all judge people and actions as if there where objective moral values,

premise 1 and premise 2 have not been proven, but most people grant them, and there are good reasons to accept them. and I see no good reason to reject them.......

And that is a whole lot of stupid combined with a whole lot of ignorance...

Piece of advice Leroy, just don't repeat stupid arguments that you get on christian websites. Look up if there's any rebuttals and consider what they say.

Your tactic of "I'm going to say a whole lot of stupid, please refute me" has long gone past getting tiresome.

 

[leroy]

In others, you're asking me to repeat myself, again.

Why are you so damn lazy Leroy? Why does everyone have to indulge your goldfish memory?

again? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have a better idea.......


prove human choice

publish your work in a journal

claim your nobel price

become rich and famous for solving a problem that has struggled philosophers and then scientists for centuries.


and only after you became rich and famous, present your proof in this forum, (otherwise others might plagiarize your proof and become rich and famous with your work)



don't worry for some reason your proof was not uploaded in this forum, maybe there was a problem with the server, luckily no one has access to your proof and no one will plagiarize your work.

 

[MarsCydonia]

again? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have a better idea.......

prove human choice

publish your work in a journal

claim your nobel price

become rich and famous for solving a problem that has struggled philosophers and then scientists for centuries.

Why don't you say what you really think?
"If you're not going to indulge my stupidity, I'm going to act as if you believe in Leroy's definition of "human choice/will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc." rather than deal with what you've written because I'm just a cowardly troll".

You're still confusing Leroy's definition of "human choice/will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc." with how other people use the term.
I've repeated this 3 times and you're still too stupid to deal with it.

 

[leroy]

again? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have a better idea.......

prove human choice

publish your work in a journal

claim your nobel price

become rich and famous for solving a problem that has struggled philosophers and then scientists for centuries.

Why don't you say what you really think?
"If you're not going to indulge my stupidity, I'm going to act as if you believe in Leroy's definition of "human choice/will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc." rather than deal with what you've written because I'm just a cowardly troll".

You're still confusing Leroy's definition of "human choice/will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc." with how other people use the term.
I've repeated this 3 times and you're still too stupid to deal with it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

for those who dont know .....this is what I mean with human choice...( or /will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc) Mars whats to make it seem as if I have some sort of tricky definition.


]human choice = the idea that at least sometimes we have more than one option.


so mars please correct me if I am wrong.


you grant human choice as defined above.....................yes or no

you claim that you can proof that human choice is real...........yes or no


.......

given that no one has ever proved human choice and given that this is a problem that has struggled philosophers and scientist for centuries my suggestion is that you should proof human choice, present your proof in a journal and claim your nobel price.

 

[MarsCydonia]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

for those who dont know .....this is what I mean with human choice...( or /will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc) Mars whats to make it seem as if I have some sort of tricky definition.

]human choice = the idea that at least sometimes we have more than one option.

so mars please correct me if I am wrong.

We all know your circular reasoning at this stage Leroy.
"Leroy's definition of human choices/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is having more than 1 "options"
"Options" is having different choices.

But if you want to show how poorly you understand human choices and will, why don't you take it back to the appropriate thread?

you grant human choice as defined above.....................yes or no

you claim that you can proof that human choice is real...........yes or no

.......

given that no one has ever proved human choice and given that this is a problem that has struggled philosophers and scientist for centuries my suggestion is that you should proof human choice, present your proof in a journal and claim your nobel price.

4th time Leroy: what you mean by "Leroy's definition of human choices/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is not the same as what other people mean. Try to deal with what is written rather than your fantasies.
For exemple, when you take this back to the appropriate thread, look at my past comments and stop deluding yourself and read what was written instead of making up some fantasies.

4th time, you really are that stupid.

 

[leroy]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

for those who dont know .....this is what I mean with human choice...( or /will/ free will/libertarian free will/freedom, etc) Mars whats to make it seem as if I have some sort of tricky definition.

]human choice = the idea that at least sometimes we have more than one option.

so mars please correct me if I am wrong.

We all know your circular reasoning at this stage Leroy.
"Leroy's definition of human choices/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is having more than 1 "options"
"Options" is having different choices.

But if you want to show how poorly you understand human choices and will, why don't you take it back to the appropriate thread?

you grant human choice as defined above.....................yes or no

you claim that you can proof that human choice is real...........yes or no

.......

given that no one has ever proved human choice and given that this is a problem that has struggled philosophers and scientist for centuries my suggestion is that you should proof human choice, present your proof in a journal and claim your nobel price.

4th time Leroy: what you mean by "Leroy's definition of human choices/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is not the same as what other people mean. Try to deal with what is written rather than your fantasies.
For exemple, when you take this back to the appropriate thread, look at my past comments and stop deluding yourself and read what was written instead of making up some fantasies.

4th time, you really are that stupid.

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


your attempts to avoid direct answers are pathetic.


don't worry I wont bother you with this anymore, If I haven't received a direct answer in the last 10 attempts, expecting something different the 11th time would be Insanity.

 

[MarsCydonia]

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

your attempts to avoid direct answers are pathetic.

don't worry I wont bother you with this anymore, If I haven't received a direct answer in the last 10 attempts, expecting something different the 11th time would be Insanity.

You were already answered Leroy, I won't indulge your laziness over and over again just because you're both too lazy and too stupid to lookup and understand answers that were clear to everyone else.

Tell yourself whatever fantasy where you are intelligent enough to understand the answers or whatever fantasy you pretend I did not answer that you need to but the only person you will be fooling is yourself.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

.

After all your comments here, there is little doubt that you are scum, you're a snake and you're a terrible person.

how can I be a terrible person if you don't even believe in objective morality?

Simple, by his subjective understanding of morality. I'm sure there are people that don't think you're a terrible person (at least I hope so... :shock: ), their subjective morality differs.

 

[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

well Grumpy Santa, given that you already granted objective morality

yes they are fighting to save your children from hell, is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. They're trying to scare my kids into fearing something that doesn't exist and wish to do so at the expense of my kids education. That is highly unethical and immoral.

you have 2 alternatives

ether reject premise 1 or accept the conclusion...........which one are you going to pick?

 

[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.

well Grumpy Santa, given that you already granted objective morality

No, I pretty much said the exact opposite of that if you reread it.

yes they are fighting to save your children from hell, is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. They're trying to scare my kids into fearing something that doesn't exist and wish to do so at the expense of my kids education. That is highly unethical and immoral.

you have 2 alternatives

ether reject premise 1 or accept the conclusion...........which one are you going to pick?

I already mentioned that I reject both premises 1 and 2.

 

[leroy]

[
No, I pretty much said the exact opposite of that if you reread it.

by claiming that something is inmoral you are granting objective morality

I already mentioned that I reject both premises 1 and 2.

ok so you already granted premise 2, then all I have to do to prove the existence of God is provide Good reasons to accept premise 1...................agree?

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[
No, I pretty much said the exact opposite of that if you reread it.

by claiming that something is inmoral you are granting objective morality

False. I'm simply stating that something is immoral based on my own morality, nothing more. Some people thought (and still think) that slavery is acceptable. I find it deeply immoral.

I already mentioned that I reject both premises 1 and 2.

ok so you already granted premise 2, then all I have to do to prove the existence of God is provide Good reasons to accept premise 1...................agree?

No, reread please, I rejected premise 2 as well as premise 1.

 

[leroy]

False. I'm simply stating that something is immoral based on my own morality, nothing more. Some people thought (and still think) that slavery is acceptable. I find it deeply immoral.

.

Yes and I find shrimps deeply untasty


the point is that the bible would be morally wrong only according to your own personal opinion, you can conclude that the bible is wrong, nor that God doesn't exist just because you personally don't like the implications


only by granting objective morality you could make a meaningful argument

 

[Bango Skank]

the point is that the bible would be morally wrong only according to your own personal opinion, you can conclude that the bible is wrong, nor that God doesn't exist just because you personally don't like the implications


only by granting objective morality you could make a meaningful argument

If i have objective moral standard and find many things in the bible morally wrong, it means that your God does not exist, or at least is not the law giver.