Moral Argument Syllogism

[anonymous person]

The second premise of a particular formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God reads,

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

In this thread we will give those indignant and concerned men who object to God sending a flood, a chance to explain what grounds they have for maintaining that it is objectively wrong to cause babies to die by being overtaken by a flood.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wonderful. Let's start with your premise...

How does one know an objective moral value exists?

 

[anonymous person]

Wonderful. Let's start with your premise...

How does one know an objective moral value exists?

Ask the men in my other thread who claim the flood was objectively wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Define "objective moral values."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask the men in my other thread who claim the flood was objectively wrong.

I'm asking you in this thread...I didn't read your other thread.

It's your premise...explain it already.

 

[anonymous person]

Define "objective moral values."

Ask the men in the other thread who kept talking about babies drowning and unborn babies dying and six year old girls drowning. They are atheists talking about these things. Maybe you will listen to them since you are also an atheist. Don't ask me. Ask them.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm asking you in this thread...I didn't read your other thread.

It's your premise...explain it already.

Ask them. I'm not an atheist. They are. You may be more inclined to listen to them for they are smarter and more bright than I am. I am just an ignorant man.

Ask the smart people. Ask your fellow atheists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ask the men in the other thread who kept talking about babies drowning and unborn babies dying and six year old girls drowning. They are atheists talking about these things. Maybe you will listen to them since you are also an atheist. Don't ask me. Ask them.

I'm asking you what you mean by "objective moral values and duties" since you raised it as the second premise of the moral argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask them. I'm not an atheist. They are. You may be more inclined to listen to them for they are smarter and more bright than I am. I am just an ignorant man.

Ask the smart people. Ask your fellow atheists.

It's your thread...

Why would you not address the premise of your own thread?

Trust me, the moment they make a thread claiming that objective morals exist I'll ask them the same question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's your thread...

Why would you not address the premise of your own thread?

Trust me, the moment they make a thread claiming that objective morals exist I'll ask them the same question.

It won't matter in the long run, I think... this thread is clearly GA and will likely face closure.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm asking you what you mean by "objective moral values and duties" since you raised it as the second premise of the moral argument.

Ask them. See if you get an answer. I don't know why on earth they wouldn't answer you. They had no problem over in the other thread condemning certain actions ad objectively wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It won't matter in the long run, I think... this thread is clearly GA and will likely face closure.

Lol who does that?

"Here's a premise I'd like to discuss in this thread"

"I challenge your premise!"

"Whoa...I don't want to talk about it, ask someone else."

 

[anonymous person]

It won't matter in the long run, I think... this thread is clearly GA and will likely face closure.

It's clearly about a philosophical syllogism.

Specifically the syllogism's second premise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask them. See if you get an answer. I don't know why on earth they wouldn't answer you. They had no problem over in the other thread condemning certain actions ad objectively wrong.

If you're not willing to address the premise you put forth in this thread, you should probably just ask a mod to remove it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's clearly about a philosophical syllogism.

Specifically the syllogism's second premise.

So far, it's actually about your unwillingness to engage in discussion.

 

[anonymous person]

It's your thread...

Why would you not address the premise of your own thread?

Trust me, the moment they make a thread claiming that objective morals exist I'll ask them the same question.

They will be over here shortly with their banners and pickets saying "no more drowning of babies!"

Ask them when they get here.

 

[quatona]

That´s great. Each time you can´t defend your position you just create a new thread and move the goalposts? Not to say that that´s morally wrong...

The second premise of a particular formulation of the moral argument for the existence of God reads,
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

Genocide being among them, by any chance?

In this thread we will give those indignant and concerned men who object to God sending a flood, a chance to explain what grounds they have for maintaining that it is objectively wrong to cause babies to die by being overtaken by a flood.

I haven´t seen many there saying it was objectively wrong. Have you?

 

[anonymous person]

If you're not willing to address the premise you put forth in this thread, you should probably just ask a mod to remove it.

Really?

So you don't think your atheist cohorts can answer your questions?

 

[Ana the Ist]

They will be over here shortly with their banners and pickets saying "no more drowning of babies!"

Ask them when they get here.

Well until then let's pretend that you created a thread based upon a premise ...

Do you believe in objective morals?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Really?

So you don't think your atheist cohorts can answer your questions?

I don't think you can...

Your inability in this thread speaks volumes.