(Yesterday at 5:16 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:58 am)AngelThMan Wrote: The provided answer is a [b]rhetorical evasion and a defensive outburst[/b], not a logical proof. 

----

You're an idiot, so get lost 

I must have missed where he claimed it was? Also the response wasn't initially his, and did not only claim the answer was obvious, but offered an exapansive explanation, so you're lying again, and using a straw man again, and using ad hominem again. 

FYI ad hominem and straw manning are irrational by definition, and trolling is not debate.

I'm not bothered at all; I find his weak attempts to embarrass me absolutely hilarious.

(Yesterday at 5:11 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:58 am)AngelThMan Wrote: To show you how dumb you are, I pasted your answer on ai to see if it's logically sound. Here's how I phrased it:

is this a logically sound argument: The question was: What objective standard determines something is good or bad.
The answer: "It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

AI's assessment on the logic:

[b]No, this is not a logically sound argument.[/b] In fact, it fails to qualify as a logical argument altogether, as it contains multiple logical fallacies, offers no structural validity, and lacks any evidence or verifiable premises.
The response breaks down logically as follows:

1. Serious Logical Fallacies

• [b]Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):[/b] The phrase "It is obvious... That is an answer" attempts to prove the conclusion simply by asserting that the conclusion is already true and self-evident. It bypasses the need for an objective standard entirely by claiming the standard is just "obvious," providing no actual reasoning.
  
  
• [b]Ad Hominem (Personal Attack):[/b] Phrases like "The only one here who states dumb stuff is you" and "how clueless you are" attack the character and intelligence of the person asking the question rather than addressing the substance of the question itself.
  
  
• [b]Shifting the Burden of Proof:[/b] Saying "Not his problem it flies over your head" is an evasion tactic. When someone makes a claim (implying there is an answer or standard), the burden of proof rests on them to provide and explain it, not on the interlocutor to guess it.
  

2. Failure of Structural Validity
For an argument to be logically sound, it must first be [b]valid[/b], meaning the conclusion must necessarily follow from its premises.

• [b]Premise 1:[/b] The standard is obvious.
  
  
• [b]Premise 2:[/b] You are clueless and stating dumb stuff.
  
  
• [b]Conclusion:[/b] Therefore, the question has been answered.
  

Even if both premises were completely true, the conclusion does not logically follow. Insulting someone's understanding does not structurally construct an objective framework for morality ("good or bad").

Summary
The provided answer is a [b]rhetorical evasion and a defensive outburst[/b], not a logical proof. It completely fails to provide a sound argument.

----

You're an idiot, so get lost 

Congrats, you didn’t show anything here, and nope, I’m not going anywhere.  But your free to leave at any time and spare yourself further embarrassment ....Idiot 

Its also very telling you require AI to think for you 

I just showed you evidence you're a dumbass 

(Yesterday at 5:23 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:11 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Congrats, you didn’t show anything here, and nope, I’m not going anywhere.  But your free to leave at any time and spare yourself further embarrassment ....Idiot 

Its also very telling you require AI to think for you 

I just showed you evidence you're a dumbass 

No, you didn’t. Copying and pasting something from AI doesn’t mean anything, dumbass.

(Yesterday at 5:15 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Its also very telling you require AI to think for you

And that he even needed to lie to AI, straw manning the actual response, that's either the most desperate attempt at self validation, or some of the poorest trolling I've ever seen.

(Yesterday at 5:28 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:15 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Its also very telling you require AI to think for you

And that he even needed lied to AI, straw manning the actual response, that's either the most desperate attempt at self validation, or some of the poorest trolling I've ever seen.

I don't think it's trolling, since trolls are usually more clever than this. 

If IF, 'god(s)' exist, they are 'being(s)', and no one being's opinions are more 'objective' than another's no matter how powerful they are. That's how I see it. And people like you, OP, who see yourselves as noble and superior, I just see as greedy and selfish; willing to throw anyone under the bus just to guarantee yourself a place in the 'heaven' you believe in. That Bible story of a man willing to sacrifice his son to god... that's not noble, that's fucking selfish greed... masquerading as nobility. A man willing to throw his own son under the bus, just to guarantee his own place in heaven. But if another powerful being came along, offering you more.... a better 'heaven'... for less, I'm sure people like you would take up the offer in a flash, out of pure selfish greed, and call this new 'god's whims 'objective morality', and everyone else's, including your previously worshiped god's opinions, 'subjective'. So before you 'dismiss' me, I 'dismiss' you... fuck you, and people like you. IF god exists, then frankly I'd feel sorry for him, if the only thing he's got to look forward to is greedy twats like you for company for eternity in 'heaven'. Fuck you.

(Yesterday at 5:37 am)emjay Wrote: If IF, 'god(s)' exist, they are 'being(s)', and no one being's opinions are more 'objective' than another's no matter how powerful they are. That's how I see it. And people like you, OP, who see yourselves as noble and superior, I just see as greedy and selfish; willing to throw anyone under the bus just to guarantee yourself a place in the 'heaven' you believe in. That Bible story of a man willing to sacrifice his son to god... that's not noble, that's fucking selfish greed... masquerading as nobility. A man willing to throw his own son under the bus, just to guarantee his own place in heaven. But if another powerful being came along, offering you more.... a better 'heaven'... for less, I'm sure people like you would take up the offer in a flash, out of pure selfish greed, and call this new 'god's whims 'objective morality', and everyone else's, including your previously worshiped god's opinions, 'subjective'. So before you 'dismiss' me, I 'dismiss' you... fuck you, and people like you. IF god exists, then frankly I'd feel sorry for him, if the only thing he's got to look forward to is greedy twats like you for company for eternity in 'heaven'. Fuck you.

Well of course religious arguments for moral objectivism, generally argue that God's immutable nature serves as an objective anchor for goodness, Lane Craig has used this. Under this view, moral values are grounded in a necessary, supreme reality that transcends human opinion, culture, and time.

The problem for me is that there is no evidence any deity exists, and humans have imagined countless deities and religions, so value judgments grounded in objective reality, even if they ultimately rest on subjective preferences, are demonstrably superior to unevidenced deities offering diktat through a myriad of archaic religious texts. This had Lane Craig embarrassing himself by publicly defending divine genocide as moral, because by his rationale the deity he imagines is perfectly moral, thus any action by it must also be moral. 

 Equally problematic for me, is that even if anyone could establish such a deity exists, how would they demonstrate that it's moral opinions were any less subjective than that of humans. The fact it had Lane Craig, for example, defending genocide as good / moral, is a large clue as to why blindly surrendering morality to the claims of archaic religious texts is problematic. It had Christians for example defending slavery, and homophobia, and using the bible as evidence. 

All we have to evaluate moral claims is our reason, if we surrender that to blind faith, then that's not morality to me, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules.

So for me flawed human reason, and our innate evolved empathy, that are at least anchored in objective reality, are always going to be a superior starting point for any moral worldview.

(Yesterday at 5:54 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:37 am)emjay Wrote: If IF, 'god(s)' exist, they are 'being(s)', and no one being's opinions are more 'objective' than another's no matter how powerful they are. That's how I see it. And people like you, OP, who see yourselves as noble and superior, I just see as greedy and selfish; willing to throw anyone under the bus just to guarantee yourself a place in the 'heaven' you believe in. That Bible story of a man willing to sacrifice his son to god... that's not noble, that's fucking selfish greed... masquerading as nobility. A man willing to throw his own son under the bus, just to guarantee his own place in heaven. But if another powerful being came along, offering you more.... a better 'heaven'... for less, I'm sure people like you would take up the offer in a flash, out of pure selfish greed, and call this new 'god's whims 'objective morality', and everyone else's, including your previously worshiped god's opinions, 'subjective'. So before you 'dismiss' me, I 'dismiss' you... fuck you, and people like you. IF god exists, then frankly I'd feel sorry for him, if the only thing he's got to look forward to is greedy twats like you for company for eternity in 'heaven'. Fuck you.

Well of course religious arguments for moral objectivism, generally argue that God's immutable nature serves as an objective anchor for goodness, Lane Craig has used this. Under this view, moral values are grounded in a necessary, supreme reality that transcends human opinion, culture, and time.

The problem for me is that there is no evidence any deity exists, so value judgments grounded in objective reality, even if they ultimately rest on subjective preferences, are demonstrably superior to unevidenced deities offering diktat through archaic religious texts. this had Lane Craig embarrassing himself by publicly defending divine genocide as moral, because by his rationale the deity he imagines is perfectly moral, thus any action by it must also be moral. 

 Equally problematic for me, is that even if anyone could establish such a deity exists, how would they demonstrate that it's moral opinions were any less subjective than that of humans. The fact it had Lane Craig, for example, defending genocide as good / moral, is a large clue as to why blindly surrendering morality to the claims of archaic religious texts is problematic. It had Christians for example defending slavery, and homophobia, and using the bible as evidence. 

All we have to evaluate moral claims is our reason, if we surrender that to blind faith, then that's not morality to me, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules.

The problem is that all qualities are based on circularity.

Why is anything considered “good” or “right” under that view, when you can dissect any supposed basis that gives God the supposed grounding for morality.  

(Yesterday at 6:03 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:54 am)Sheldon Wrote: Well of course religious arguments for moral objectivism, generally argue that God's immutable nature serves as an objective anchor for goodness, Lane Craig has used this. Under this view, moral values are grounded in a necessary, supreme reality that transcends human opinion, culture, and time.

The problem for me is that there is no evidence any deity exists, so value judgments grounded in objective reality, even if they ultimately rest on subjective preferences, are demonstrably superior to unevidenced deities offering diktat through archaic religious texts. this had Lane Craig embarrassing himself by publicly defending divine genocide as moral, because by his rationale the deity he imagines is perfectly moral, thus any action by it must also be moral. 

 Equally problematic for me, is that even if anyone could establish such a deity exists, how would they demonstrate that it's moral opinions were any less subjective than that of humans. The fact it had Lane Craig, for example, defending genocide as good / moral, is a large clue as to why blindly surrendering morality to the claims of archaic religious texts is problematic. It had Christians for example defending slavery, and homophobia, and using the bible as evidence. 

All we have to evaluate moral claims is our reason, if we surrender that to blind faith, then that's not morality to me, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules.

The problem is that all qualities are based on circularity.

Why is anything considered “good” or “right” under that view, when you can dissect any supposed basis that gives God the supposed grounding for morality.  

Well this is where humanism is a superior ideology for me, as it is at least fair in assigning human well being as its primary concern. Right out of the gate ideas like slavery, chauvinism, and homophobia would have to be condemned as immoral. 

Humanism 1      gods   0

And all while accepting that human well being as a primary goal, is nonetheless a subjective idea.

(Yesterday at 5:54 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:37 am)emjay Wrote: If IF, 'god(s)' exist, they are 'being(s)', and no one being's opinions are more 'objective' than another's no matter how powerful they are. That's how I see it. And people like you, OP, who see yourselves as noble and superior, I just see as greedy and selfish; willing to throw anyone under the bus just to guarantee yourself a place in the 'heaven' you believe in. That Bible story of a man willing to sacrifice his son to god... that's not noble, that's fucking selfish greed... masquerading as nobility. A man willing to throw his own son under the bus, just to guarantee his own place in heaven. But if another powerful being came along, offering you more.... a better 'heaven'... for less, I'm sure people like you would take up the offer in a flash, out of pure selfish greed, and call this new 'god's whims 'objective morality', and everyone else's, including your previously worshiped god's opinions, 'subjective'. So before you 'dismiss' me, I 'dismiss' you... fuck you, and people like you. IF god exists, then frankly I'd feel sorry for him, if the only thing he's got to look forward to is greedy twats like you for company for eternity in 'heaven'. Fuck you.

Well of course religious arguments for moral objectivism, generally argue that God's immutable nature serves as an objective anchor for goodness, Lane Craig has used this. Under this view, moral values are grounded in a necessary, supreme reality that transcends human opinion, culture, and time.

The problem for me is that there is no evidence any deity exists, and humans have imagined countless deities and religions, so value judgments grounded in objective reality, even if they ultimately rest on subjective preferences, are demonstrably superior to unevidenced deities offering diktat through a myriad of archaic religious texts. This had Lane Craig embarrassing himself by publicly defending divine genocide as moral, because by his rationale the deity he imagines is perfectly moral, thus any action by it must also be moral. 

 Equally problematic for me, is that even if anyone could establish such a deity exists, how would they demonstrate that it's moral opinions were any less subjective than that of humans. The fact it had Lane Craig, for example, defending genocide as good / moral, is a large clue as to why blindly surrendering morality to the claims of archaic religious texts is problematic. It had Christians for example defending slavery, and homophobia, and using the bible as evidence. 

All we have to evaluate moral claims is our reason, if we surrender that to blind faith, then that's not morality to me, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules.

Well, in my case, I don't know where I stand on the question of 'moral realism'... ie 'objective morality' as Nudger talks about it. But what I do know, is that positing a 'being', however powerful it is, does not get around the problem of 'objective morality' in the slightest... blatantly obviously. And IF what he's talking about is classical theology... if that's what you're saying he is... then that no better, IMO, solves the problem, because there's no way to tie that idealised classical theology to the world we actually see. I'll leave it to my betters... like you and Nudger... to argue the case, if you can be arsed arguing with this OP, but I have no interest in doing so beyond this. Personally I lean more towards it being subjective... just the way our brains have evolved... such as the capacity for empathy, and even if that capacity, is not guaranteed to be the same in all people, it still remains to me a much better and more admirable explanation, than people who essentially need a book to tell them what is moral and what is not, masquerading it for nobility, but would change the book's rules they follow, in an instant, if it offered them something better for a cheaper price.