The Moral Argument

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This eight foot Manchild guy sure comes in swinging.....blindly.

 

[anonymous person]

This eight foot Manchild guy sure comes in swinging.....blindly.

Yea. I've been over this stuff before. I am going to have to go back and go through my old posts and use some of that material.

 

[quatona]

Ok. Start by proving that objective morality exists and we can go from there.

Me?
Why would I try to prove a notion I don´t hold?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Me?
Why would I try to prove a notion I don´t hold?

I duno anymore. Lol[emoji1]

 

[quatona]

I don't know. From what I have studied. The moral argument does not prove that objective morality exists.

Exactly. It just uses it for a premise.

 

[quatona]

I duno anymore. Lol[emoji1]

Again:
From the OP:

It goes like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

2. Objective moral values exist.

3. Therefore God exists.

1 and 2 are the premises. 3 is the conclusion.
I have yet to see a substantiation of the two premises.

 

[Davian]

I would appeal to what God has said about what is right and wrong.

Exactly how do your religious beliefs establish something as objectively wrong?

 

[Davian]

You say that one should aspire to thus and so...

What it they aspire to be the most intellectually dishonest that they can be? Are they failing to fulfill an objective moral duty to be honest?

What is an "objective moral duty", and how did you establish it as objective?

 

[Davian]

The word objective as it is used in the moral argument does not mean one of a kind or unique.

I did not imply that.

It simply means independent of human opinion and preference.

So your mentioning of something being only one of many does not have anything to do with objectivity.

It does, if the opinion of your god is only one of many gods.

The apostle Peter wrote that no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

These statements are either true or false. If true, then all other religions are false wherever they contradict this truth.

And no one has been able to demonstrate their religion as true, I know.

What I gather from this is that you can't work with the possibility that gods are possible, due to your belief that their existence is mutually exclusive. Amirite?

 

[Davian]

Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

So how do you apply that to moral values, beyond consensus of opinion and religious dogma?

 

[Davian]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/objective

Objective

1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial Contrasted with subjective.

In all of the "objective morals" I have seen you propose to date, they all seemed to be an appeal to emotion.

 

[Davian]

We have not presented the argument to you.

Do you speak for the OP?

Nor do we feel it necessary to do what you ask.

Or seem capable of it, it would seem, or you would have done so when you started your own threads on this topic.

Now if Jason wants to oblige you then fine.

I don't think the moral argument is a good argument to present to someone like yourself, so I wouldn't.

It seems that it only appeals to those that share your theology and its "morals".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A contemporary proponent of the Moral Argument is Dr. Craig.

He explains:

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz43NachoCS

So independent of whatever personal deities think about it too?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok great.

If you still want to remain an atheist, you will have to deny premise 1 which reads:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Now, you have affirmed that the systematic extermination of a particular ethnic group because they are of a particular ethnicity is objectively bad and wrong.

As an atheist, tell us what grounds these pronouncements. Notice you cannot appeal to human beings because you affirmed that they hold regardless of what human beings think.

You previously characterised "objective" as "God-given," rendering the first premise tautological, and ensuring that the argument begs the question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yea. I've been over this stuff before. I am going to have to go back and go through my old posts and use some of that material.

Perhaps you could begin by addressing all the questions you fled from? There's no point in re-presenting the same material only to encounter the same questions which you refuse to answer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Suppose that the axis powers had won the second world war and that the Nazi's exterminated everyone that was not a Nazi sympathizer so that the only people that existed on earth were those who thought that the systematic extermination of non-Germans was a good thing.

Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in?

Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

 

[anonymous person]

 

[bhsmte]

A video??

How about answering the questions posed to you?

Or, is that too risky, so you choose a video to avoid the same?

 

[anonymous person]

A video??

How about answering the questions posed to you?

Or, is that too risky, so you choose a video to avoid the same?

It is actually a very good video. It is part 1 of several. In them you will find answers to your questions.

 

[bhsmte]

It is actually a very good video. It is part 1 of several. In them you will find answers to your questions.

The quality of the video is a matter of opinion.

Why can't you answer the questions directly?