Is Slavery Moral?

[Resha Caner]

Sometimes words make an action wrong by definition. For example, there is a difference between "kill" and "murder". Many would argue that killing in self-defense is acceptable. But murder is, by definition, wrong.

So, for those who would say that slavery is, by definition, wrong, I have a few questions.

First, if someone owes you a debt, but refuses to pay, is it acceptable to take legal action against them?

 

[Par5]

So, let's carry on for a bit. You would define slavery as a concept of ownership by one human of another.

Again, what does that map to when we map it to contextual reality. If we strip away and look at what's actually going on apart from monetary and quantification concepts, and perceived claims of ownership....

What it maps to ACTUAL REALITY is one group of people forcing other group of people to do what they don't what to do in a context of limiting options for people choices to be able to do and choose otherwise.

That's what you are essentially asking me when when we translate the meaning of the naked facts of reality, because the monetary and property factors are mere projections to justify such treatment of one group of humans by other. If we strip away the concepts of money and property, slavery would still be an act of one group of people limiting choices of other groups of people in order to force them to behave a certain way.

Again, even in such context I can't unequivocally say that such behavior would be immoral independent of context.

"Exibit A" would be what we are doing with prisoners. I would argue that forcing a prisoner to repay some caused loss to the victims by forced labor would be a far more moral choice than simply isolating prisoners from society claiming that such isolation "reforms them". It doesn't. The only thing that can reform them is recognizing the actual value that was stolen, like a life or goods, as it would translate into something of meaningful value that they can give back.

In either case we are forcing them to behave in a certain way by limiting their options.

There are plentiful of other contexts in which we force limit the choices of humans and force them to behave a certain way by justifying such actions to some greater good.

Absent of context, I can't say whether such behavior is moral or immoral, because there's no means to justify any behavior apart from context in question. And that's what you are attempting to define morality as. "Maximizing well-being" is meaningless label by itself. What's meaningful are instances of what you would mean by "maximizing well-being" as these would map to contextual reality.

You could have spared us all that pseudo-intellectual nonsense and simply told us that you think that biblical slavery was just fine and dandy.
The very question, "is slavery moral?" shouldn't even need to be asked as the answer should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of empathy for their fellow human beings. Should be, but sadly some try to explain it away with the kind of nonsense you just posted. Sad, really sad!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, I'm not really concerned with proclamation of victory as much as I'm concerned with justifications .

As I'll explain later, the issue with your view, although it's highly ironic in context of emphasis on scientific method and etc, it's that it maps to conceptual model that's seeming detached from contextual reality that we actually observe as opposed to the ideals that exist in your head that you end up appealing to.

The greatest possible well-being for all is a rather vacuous concept that we would need to map to reality with some degree of precision. It's like a pageant contestant standing up and says that:

That's what out of context well-being fall all sounds like to me.

I love how your go-to argument seems to be to cast doubt on very common words.
"x is immoral" - you respond with "what do you mean by 'moral'"
"those things that increase well-being" - you respond with "what do you mean with well-being"

And all that, just to defend the obvious barbaric practice of slavery which is approved, permitted and regulated by your holy book.


Reminds me of something similar when debating theologians about the merrits of theology.

When you ask a biologist or a phycisist or whatever "what contributions to human knowledge is your field responsible for in the last 3 centuries?" they answer instantly with "this and this and that…"

Ask a theologian the same question and the answer you get is more then likely "what do you mean by 'knowledge'?"

Sorry man, but this is rather telling.

Well-being is a pretty straightforward concept and I have no clue what you need explained about that.

Do we really need to explain to you why well-being is preferable to suffering?
Why being healthy is preferable to being sick?
Why being happy is preferable to being depressed?
Why being free is preferable to being captive?
Why having a social network is preferable to being lonely?

Seriously?

Just step back for a second and reflect on what this exchange of ideas has turned into….
I mean, come on...………………………….

If in context of a conversation on morality you want to have it explained what well-being is and why it is important.... then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

In such case, it seems to me that you are completely missing the point of the conversation. Or of the purpose of morality to begin with, for that matter.

 

[Par5]

Sometimes words make an action wrong by definition. For example, there is a difference between "kill" and "murder". Many would argue that killing in self-defense is acceptable. But murder is, by definition, wrong.

So, for those who would say that slavery is, by definition, wrong, I have a few questions.

First, if someone owes you a debt, but refuses to pay, is it acceptable to take legal action against them?

Well, I for one think slavery is by definition, wrong. Don't you?
If someone owes you a debt and refuses to pay, of course you can take legal action against them, but I don't know of any court in the civilized world that punishes someone for defaulting on a debt by making them a slave to the person to whom they owe the debt. So what's your point?

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, I for one think slavery is by definition, wrong. Don't you?

I don't want anyone to be a slave.

If someone owes you a debt and refuses to pay, of course you can take legal action against them, but I don't know of any court in the civilized world that punishes someone for defaulting on a debt by making them a slave to the person to whom they owe the debt. So what's your point?

What legal action would be appropriate? Would it be OK to seize their property and sell it to pay debts?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

"Though shall not keep slaves! Though shall not engage in the trading of human beings! Though shall not consider human beings your personal property!"

Which law in your country demands how people should "consider" others? How is this measured? And uh, where did the Jews engage in the trading of human beings?

It's not hard, nore is it dificult to understand.

You changed your statment from "treating people right" (not verbatum) to "no slaves" which is not the same thing.

yes, slavery is very much illegal here.

That wasn't my question and it wasn't your statment. You have changed it.

While gassing thousands of Kurds.

And the US has murdered millions of babies all the while not allowed legal slavery.

And oppressed and killed others.

The Americans fight to the tooth to allow men and women to murder babies. Other western nations as well.

What's vague about "don't keep slaves"?

You have conveniently changed your suggestion. Realize it was too vague?

Seems like you just want to say anything and everything about the bible and god's laws is good, even when it is obviously barbaric and evil.

Seems like you just want tos ay anything and everything skipping and editing bits about the Bible and God's law so you can call it evil. Bring up a problem and you switch quickly.
[/quote]lol, changing the subject a bit, are we?[/quote]Introducing the whole of the matter, something you keep wanting to edit out.

lol, changing the subject indeed.

The topic is slavery in the bible.

And anything else that disproves your position that God is evil will not be tolerated. Hummm

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Is there something wrong with your reading comprehension? I have stated clearly that I do not consider the god you believe in to be evil for the simple fact that I don't believe in your god. I also stated the atrocities recorded in the bible were the acts of men and men alone. Those actions may have been carried out by people with the mistaken belief that it was the will of the god they believed in, but it was still just their actions, and theirs alone.
You accuse me of changing things when in fact it is you and the rest of the Christians on this thread who are changing things. I have never witnessed so much tap dancing by Christians around the subject of biblical slavery, calling it anything other than what it is, slavery.
Claiming ownership of another human being is totally repugnant and it matters not one jot if the slave owner was kind to his slaves, it is still wrong. In some cases the slave's ears were tagged to show his master's ownership. Perhaps you think that's ok too? You tag the ears of farm animals, not humans.
You said you give up. I think what you did give up was your sense of reason!

Since you resort to evil accusations of my intelligence, we are done. This is very typical, as I said, of atheists. It is, in fact, their favourite arrow. You think that because you do not believe in God, all the evil you say of Him does not matter as though you are the judge of this. That does not excuse you in anyone's eyes but your own. But I have no desire to talk to someone who stoops to personal insults when they are losing. The Being you think is not there and therefore can hurl all the insults you want on Him is recording every word. But I am not and we are done here.

 

[Par5]

Since you resort to evil accusations of my intelligence, we are done. This is very typical, as I said, of atheists. It is, in fact, their favourite arrow. You think that because you do not believe in God, all the evil you say of Him does not matter as though you are the judge of this. That does not excuse you in anyone's eyes but your own. But I have no desire to talk to someone who stoops to personal insults when they are losing. The Being you think is not there and therefore can hurl all the insults you want on Him is recording every word. But I am not and we are done here.

Oh dear, now you are playing the victim card. Evil accusations of your intelligence you say.
So me questioning your reading comprehension is evil? You accused me of calling your god evil when I stated quite clearly that I was doing nothing of the sort and you are still accusing me of the same, so why wouldn't I question your reading comprehension? If you think me criticising you as I did was evil, then may I suggest you invest in a dictionary and get to understand the meaning of the word.

 

[Par5]

I don't want anyone to be a slave.



What legal action would be appropriate? Would it be OK to seize their property and sell it to pay debts?

In the UK the high court can send bailiffs to recover the debt, and if the debtor can't pay, the bailiffs have the authority to remove goods to the value of the debt.
I don't know what any of that has to do with slavery though.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't know what any of that has to do with slavery though.

You can start explaining to me what you think slavery is. Then we can see if there are any similarities between my questions and what you say.

In the UK the high court can send bailiffs to recover the debt, and if the debtor can't pay, the bailiffs have the authority to remove goods to the value of the debt.

I assume, however, they wouldn't seize all their property and leave the person destitute - leave them to starve, etc. So, if their current property is not sufficient to pay the debt, would it be acceptable to garnish future earnings? Further, if the person flees in order to avoid this, is it acceptable to restrain them? Confine them?

 

[devolved]

love how your go-to argument seems to be to cast doubt on very common words.
"x is immoral" - you respond with "what do you mean by 'moral'"
"those things that increase well-being" - you respond with "what do you mean with well-being"

I get it why you would rather write a page-long piece about your frustrations as opposed to directly address what I outlined in my answer that you demanded me to give.

Do you have any reasonable objections to my definition of morality and examples that I supplied?

And all that, just to defend the obvious barbaric practice of slavery which is approved, permitted and regulated by your holy book.

I'm not defending the barbaric practices. I've outlined the context of slavery which I would think would be morally permissible. You don't seem to address it directly, but you are back to demanding that we must interpret meaning the way you want it to be

Reminds me of something similar when debating theologians about the merrits of theology.

When you ask a biologist or a phycisist or whatever "what contributions to human knowledge is your field responsible for in the last 3 centuries?" they answer instantly with "this and this and that…"

Ask a theologian the same question and the answer you get is more then likely "what do you mean by 'knowledge'?"

Sorry man, but this is rather telling.

Why should I care what theologians say about the knowledge? You should bring your quip to them. I'm a CEO tech guy who develops video automation tools. That's my contribution to modern society. Apart from that there are philosophical baseline that very easily accommodate physics, and biology...

Do you have actual problems with my definition of morality and my explanation as to why I understand it as contextual?

Well-being is a pretty straightforward concept and I have no clue what you need explained about that.

Do we really need to explain to you why well-being is preferable to suffering?
Why being healthy is preferable to being sick?
Why being happy is preferable to being depressed?
Why being free is preferable to being captive?
Why having a social network is preferable to being lonely?

Seriously?

Did I say that I disagree?

You asked me if slavery is immoral in context of OT.

I provided you my definition of morality, which I think is contextual, and I provided you with a context in which slavery would not be immoral.

My issue with well-being is that it's a VAGUE CONCEPT for FRAMING CONTEXTUAL MORALITY.

It's sort of like saying moral is everything that's good for us. Ok. It says absolutely nothing when it comes to complex situations where morality should serve as a guide.

Just step back for a second and reflect on what this exchange of ideas has turned into….
I mean, come on...………………………….

Are you actually going to address any of my ideas, or are you going to merely cry out in frustration that these don't fit your presupposed model of how people should think and define words?

If in context of a conversation on morality you want to have it explained what well-being is and why it is important.... then I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Well-being is a generic concept. You think you know what you are talking about, until we attempt to cast it on questionable specifics of reality, and then your concept breaks down.


The point being is that reality is nuanced and is full of moral conflicts that run into each other. And your well-being concept is useless in such context.

In such case, it seems to me that you are completely missing the point of the conversation. Or of the purpose of morality to begin with, for that matter.

The context of this conversation is - you argue from a position of atheistic model asking me me to explain my morality concept to you in a way that would fit your presuppositions.

So far you have not justified anything except for a lot of "come on" and "it's obvious". So, you reduce your argument to an appeal to common sense? Seriously?

Common sense fallacy

 

[cvanwey]

Two positions may be argued in defense of claimed 'objective morals' (A or B):


A) Murder is wrong because these moral's are built into humans from God - (we already know right from wrong, because we were built in god's image). This proposition does not claim humans will not murder, but that humans inherently know it's 'wrong' to murder.


(OR)


B) Murder is wrong because god says so, as ordered from the Bible.


Position A):


If murder is wrong because most agree, then there is no need for a god to instruct as such; because the knowledge is already built within us to distinguish an absolute 'right/wrong' position. But then the theist will respond stating that God still does need to instruct such a command in the Bible, to present an absolute standard, or 'objective morality'. Humans that somehow don't agree, are then instructed that murder actually is objectively wrong.


But.....


If slavery is wrong because most agree, then there is no need for a God to instruct as such; because the knowledge is already built within us to distinguish an absolute 'right/wrong' position. But then the theist will respond stating that God still does need to instruct such a command in the Bible, to present an absolute standard or 'objective morality'. Humans that somehow don't agree, are then instructed that slavery actually is objectively wrong.


But wait....


This logic is flawed. God instructs that murder is wrong, via the sixth commandment. However, no such instruction exists for slavery. A matter of fact, many verses condone/allow/permit/'regulate' slavery, instruct how to use slavery, and also instruct how one may or may not beat human property. But nowhere does the Bible state not to own another human as property and not to beat human property.


By using the above logic...


Murder is immoral because most agree, and the Bible re-affirms the same position, making murder objectively immoral. Even though God commanded killing, which is another topic I will not discuss; as it is not necessary.


Slavery is immoral because most agree, and yet the Bible does not re-affirm the same position? (making slavery objectively moral or immoral)? If opinions mostly agree slavery is immoral, because we were built in God's image and possess God's knowledge to absolute moral values, but the Bible condones slavery and never rebukes it, this is not rational. Is slavery moral or immoral?


In conclusion, to use position A) as a basis for objective morals is illogical.


So what about position B)?:


If claimed 'objective morals' are 'absolute', because God says so, then the word 'morality' is now irrelevant. When arguing this position, it does not matter what the human thinks or feels, and simply uses the Bible to instruct 'right/wrong'. The claimed human compass carries no weight, as the human is merely following commands.


God commands not to murder. God instructs how to enslave and how to beat slaves.


In conclusion, using position B), murder is wrong, because god says so, and slavery is acceptable, because god says so. Our personal justifications, positions, and arguments don't matter. Therefore, pure divine command would be the only answer and our personal thoughts or opinions have no use. If this is the case, if we don't have the Bible memorized, and we are presented with a moral dilemma, and we only have our brains to distinguish a conclusion, how might one proceed?


Either position is flawed in logic and reason.

 

[cvanwey]

Of course it was written by men. And of course it is claimed to be inspired by a higher power. I suspect my definition of "inspired" would drastically differ from yours.

Well, some definitions of 'inspired' would suggest the assertion of divine influence. Now all one needs to do, is demonstrate such 'inspiration'. Which means not only a single agent, but your specific agent.

When I read the Bible, my axiomatic conclusion tells me it is nothing more than ancient human thoughts, written to paper by humans, where most of these assertions were general consensus of the day... (i.e.) Against homosexuality (because most heterosexuals think it is 'gross', as they are not attracted to the same sex themselves), slavery (as either the authors were slave owners themselves, or, maybe instructed by authority to write as such), misogyny (because this was even the general standard in our own country until under 100 years ago), witches (because many concluded magic for the unexplained), etc, etc, etc....

Which one of us two is more likely correct, and how might one investigate?

You state the Bible was written by humans, and divinely inspired.

I say it was written by humans, period.

Who obtains the burden of proof here? And how might one demonstrate a conclusion, in your favor, when we both apply an axiom with opposite conclusions?

 

[cvanwey]

error, duplicate

 

[ValueOfLiving]

It's very strange. How slavery can be moral? Disgustingly.

 

[devolved]

First see my post here:

Is Slavery Moral?

Well, some definitions of 'inspired' would suggest the assertion of divine influence. Now all one needs to do, is demonstrate such 'inspiration'. Which means not only a single agent, but your specific agent.

You seem to have a "Dan Brown Novel" approach to this subject. This is not how all of this works.

Let's say that you have a vision of God like some people claim they did, and God convinces you in some manner that God exists. The reality that you occupy doesn't inherently change. Rocks are still rocks. People are still people. Scientific models would still work ok. You could still walk over to your tv and turn it off. You'd still have a job. We'd still live in the same exact society we live today. Bible would still have the same content in it.

What changes is how you perceive the overall meaning as how certain concepts relate to other in the "global sense", and what may change is how you would perceive yourself and the other people when it comes to your place in reality. Your goals may shift. The importance that you place on certain concepts may be different.

Overall, for most people like myself, who never had a vision of God "proving himself", it's a retrospective axiom based on the values that I already hold. Thus it becomes a fitting piece to the puzzle that explains the rest.

Who obtains the burden of proof here? And how might one demonstrate a conclusion, in your favor, when we both apply an axiom with opposite conclusions?

Burden of proof only applies to concepts where we agree on axiomatic presuppositions that frame the internal logic. That's why mathematicians, logicians, lawyers, and Biblical theologians can use proofs which are coherent with clearly-defined logic.

If our baseline axiomatic presuppositions are different, then this concept doesn't work, because you'd have to first prove to me that your axioms are correct, and you can't... these are axioms.

See my post here:

Is Slavery Moral?

As Christians we adopt a few axioms to explain reality:

1) God exists and created this reality

2) We as humanity were given a choice to know things because God told us, or to know things because we will find out through experience. We chose the latter, and God "hid" himself, and still indirectly guides the process of us attempting to do just that.

And I get Atheistic position, because pragmatically the issue of God's hidenness and seeming involvement beyond claim revelation and individual experiences... is indistinguishable from "there is no God" in context of our everyday lives.

The reason why I believe otherwise is because I've investigated and don't see how my personal model of knowledge can operate without making that axiomatic assumption. You may find a way. I don't at this point of time.

 

[devolved]

Who obtains the burden of proof here? And how might one demonstrate a conclusion, in your favor, when we both apply an axiom with opposite conclusions?

I posted this in a different thread, but I thought it would be relevant to your question here.

If we have two propositions:

1) Intelligent being created our reality
2) Reality exists as an arbitrary function

Proposition 2 wouldn't even be able to justify pragmatism. It would be a cycle of "we do, because we do, because we do". The moment you look outside of the cycle... there are no reasons to keep doing it anymore... especially if doing it is painful, difficult and taxing. I'm not saying that's all it is, but in context of life... it is largely becomes a cycle of rather painful fight of keeping something intact for no other reason than doing something (if we inevitably reduce it to a pragmatic concept), and observing that eventually it will fall apart.

Thus, from unsupported pragmatic perspective... why do anything at all? Why have children that will suffer and die? Why build technology that merely gives us more to do. It's an existential problem, and many people who really get confronted with this problem fall into depression, which you have to find more things to do as a distraction, or alter brain chemistry to give you more dopamine to keep going through the cycle.

Thus, if the answer is "we do it to make our lives better". In what sense is it better? If by better you mean triggering neuro-chemical response that makes us feel happy when we satisfied with our internal pre-requisites for happiness being met, then constant drug use can do just that.

Thus reality devolves into meaningless absurdity. Yes you can act and pretend as though it has inherent meaning, but eventually you have to ask... does it really? And if it doesn't have inherent meaning... why would you care to give it any meaning?

 

[cvanwey]

Overall, for most people like myself, who never had a vision of God "proving himself", it's a retrospective axiom based on the values that I already hold. Thus it becomes a fitting piece to the puzzle that explains the rest.

With all due respect, the terms below are not meant to be disrespectful. I know you are already intelligent enough; but I must present the seemingly obvious positions you are presenting:

'The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.'

'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'

Burden of proof only applies to concepts where we agree on axiomatic presuppositions that frame the internal logic. That's why mathematicians, logicians, lawyers, and Biblical theologians can use proofs which are coherent with clearly-defined logic.

I strongly advise you watch the 2 hour documentary regarding Kitzmiiler vs Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial. Then tell me again how you can lump or smuggle in all your other topics in with theology

If our baseline axiomatic presuppositions are different, then this concept doesn't work, because you'd have to first prove to me that your axioms are correct, and you can't... these are axioms.

If you are going to reject the basic concept that humans exist and write stuff to paper, as the baseline, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss...

As Christians we adopt a few axioms to explain reality:

1) God exists and created this reality

2) We as humanity were given a choice to know things because God told us, or to know things because we will find out through experience. We chose the latter, and God "hid" himself, and still indirectly guides the process of us attempting to do just that.

And again, you might understand what two fallacies you are committing...

You may find a way. I don't at this point of time.

Again, same two fallacies..... Meaning, therefore Yahweh?

We are going in circles... It's one thing to appeal to a 'first cause', first mover', 'prime mover', 'timeless mind', other... However, when reading the Bible, it does not appear to fit with even your model. One has no choice by to deny, distort, and redefine many statements and assertions, to make the Bible fit with known reality.

In this thread, I started with slavery...

 

[cvanwey]

Thus reality devolves into meaningless absurdity. Yes you can act and pretend as though it has inherent meaning, but eventually you have to ask... does it really? And if it doesn't have inherent meaning... why would you care to give it any meaning?

Because we have the ability to ask the 'why' question, does not then conclude it must suite or emotionally fulfill our wished. Am I a nihilist? Not necessarily... I'm a realist. I'm more interested in what is true, verses what makes me feel warm and tingly. I'm in the search for truth, while attempting to stay away from as many logical fallacies, for the basis of my final conclusion as possible. Am I perfect? Of course not. Can you critique my methodology? Of course...

Do I want to live forever? Of course. Do I wish to exist in a celestial paradise/Utopia for eternity? Sounds awesome. Humans are quite possibly the only species one this planet to invent such a concepts. Does the afterlife exist? Don't know? Does the Bible appear to even remotely close to fit with any possible known reality, or give instruction befitting with any logical concept of such wishful reality? Not from my estimation.

It sounds as if you believe in this concept, because it makes you feel good, and that you can't make sense of it any other way. Sorry, I'm not trying to 'straw man' you.

Our 'feelings' have no relevancy to actual reality. So you might then ask the question, so why do you care if slavery is moral? Well, for starters, I'm looking for intellectual honesty. I have seen very little, quite frankly. I see many here overtly violating reason and logic, in support of the Bible they claim is their axiom, presupposition, or other.

Slavery is just one very small element, in a very large chasm of seemingly apparent issues which appear to conflict with known reality.

 

[devolved]

With all due respect, the terms below are not meant to be disrespectful. I know you are already intelligent enough; but I must present the seemingly obvious positions are are presenting:

I appreciate the civility. We are having an online discussion, so I wouldn't likely be insulted even if you did it with an insult in mind. But civility is always refreshing in this context, so I appreciate it.

I think before you get too carried away with logical fallacies, we should talk about a couple of things:

1) Logic is not a study of fallacies and how to identify these. It's very typical to see when someone who never studies formal logic, or has discovered a few informal fallacies begins throwing these around as some kind of "foul" that supposed to suspend the argument.

2) Virtually all of the fallacies ever invoked in this context are informal fallacies. What you need to understand about those is that claim of informal fallacies is a kind of "reasoning by analogy". These amount to a claim that an argument is defective because it resembles in some paradigm case of a defective argument. These can be helpful and persuasive, but the reality is far more nuanced than reasoning by analogy can tackle.

The reason why I don't invoke informal fallacies in my arguments, is because I perceive it as sign of intellectual laziness. Some people erroneously think that they can shut down an argument crying "foul" without need to demonstrate why and how they see this claim of fallacy is applicable in this context.

So, Can you do me a favor? Next time when you are tempted to pull out the "fallacy card" ... can you instead tell me why you think my reasoning is false. It would be much easier discussion to have.

'The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.'

'An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.'

What you wrote above would be a very good example of of misapplying informal fallacies with claim that these invalidate or applicable to the argument.

I'm not claiming here that because we don't know therefore God

I'm claiming that our reality is void of objective meaning unless we presuppose God. These are two different claims.

I strongly advise you watch the 2 hour documentary regarding Kitzmiiler vs Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial. Then tell me again how you can lump or smuggle in all your other topics in with theology

Ok, I'll explain, because you are clearly unaware of the issue.

Mathematics, law, and Biblical theology can all argue in context of "proof" via clearly-defined presupposition framework.

In science, for example, there are no appeals to logical proofs, because science doesn't work via true/false binary means:

See here.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

If you are going to reject the basic concept that humans exist and write stuff to paper, as the baseline, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss...

I don't reject that humans exist. I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I presuppose that God exists as a necessary precondition for objective meaning.

And again, you do might understand what two fallacies you are committing...

Which fallacies would these be?

Again, Can you do me a favor? Without saying or naming these fallacies ... tell me why my reasoning is false. It would be much easier discussion to have.

Again, same two fallacies..... Meaning, therefore Yahweh?

We are going in circles... It's one thing to appeal to a 'first cause', first mover', 'prime mover', 'timeless mind', other... However, when reading the Bible, it does not appear to fit with even your model. One has no choice by to deny, distort, and redefine many statements and assertions, to make the Bible fit with known reality.

In this thread, I started with slavery...

No. You don't understand the claim, and you keep implying that informal fallacies are absolute .

Reason of itself is a circular concept, because you would need to validate reason as a concept before you can assume that something is reasonable. And what would you use to do that other than reason? It's circular, but it doesn't mean it's invalid.

I'm not saying reason therefore God. I'm saying... "God, therefore reason", in context of examining presupposition models.

To help you out... I'll reword it as:

1) IF we assume that God exists... THEN our model assumes that objective meaning exists in reality
2) IF we assume that God doesn't exist ... THEN our model assumes that there is no objective meaning

I'm not claiming here just because reason and meaning exists, then God must exist. I'm saying that given two presuppositions above, we build two different models of reality, to which #1 is a better fit for my worldview, because it justifies me acting in a way that presupposes that there is objective meaning in reality.

If I take on #2 model, it means that I presuppose that there is no objective meaning, and reality is arbitrary, and I'm not saying it alone. It's actual conclusion that naturally follow that model.

Hence, in such reality... all meaning would be subjective.