How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, and I shouldn’t strip screws. Therefore it’s morally wrong to strip a screw.



If you want to see what’s wrong with command theories, look into moral non naturalism. They’ll explain it to you.

[LadyForCamus]

Hurt is a natural fact, and a fact of a matter.

Why shouldn’t we be hurting people, though?  Why shouldn’t that be done?

Hurting is a natural fact, the wrongness of it is not, it’s only wrong because we shouldn’t hurt people.

Lol, and why shouldn’t we hurt people, Acro? Who or what decides these “oughts” that aren’t, according to you, at all related to physical well-being? Is “The Good” concerned with well-being? Yes, or no?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hurt is a natural fact, and a fact of a matter.

Why shouldn’t we be hurting people, though?  Why shouldn’t that be done?

Hurting is a natural fact, the wrongness of it is not, it’s only wrong because we shouldn’t hurt people.

As I asked earlier, is hurting someone to prevent greater hurt wrong?

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

A fun non naturalist take on that question, Camus, goes like so.

I know that I shouldn’t strip a screw, but is it wrong?

GE Moore, open question.

---

For elaboration, there was a time when Moore contended that any reference to natural properties could be countered with that question. A command, verbal or by nature, is just as much a natural property as harm.

If that were true, then moral propositions couldn’t be reduced to natural properties, harm or command.

I know it hurts, I know there’s a normative prohibition. I know it’s (x) and (y), but is it wrong (z)?

[LadyForCamus]

A fun non naturalist take on that question, Camus, goes like so.

I know that I shouldn’t strip a screw, but is it wrong?

GE Moore, open question.

---

For elaboration, there was a time when Moore contended that any reference to natural properties could be countered with that question.  A command, verbal or by nature, is just as much a natural property as harm.

If that were true, then moral propositions couldn’t be reduced to natural properties, harm or command.

I know it hurts, I know there’s a normative prohibition.  I know it’s (x) and (y), but is it wrong (z)?

If they can’t appeal to natural properties OR supernatural properties (god commands...) how does a non-naturalist approach answering that question?

[Acrobat]

Hurting is a natural fact, the wrongness of it is not, it’s only wrong because we shouldn’t hurt people.

Lol, and why shouldn’t we hurt people, Acro? Who or what decides these “oughts” that aren’t, according to you, at all related to physical well-being? Is “The Good” concerned with well-being? Yes, or no?

It’s all related to being, being a good person.

When you say or I say hurting people is wrong, it implies that we ought or should not hurt people. This as true for me as it for you.

It the difference between saying people were hurt, and hurting people is wrong.

[GrandizerII]

Here's how I see it (yeah, still awake because sleeping disorder kicking in once again):

Evolution + natural selection ... + social conditioning ... + personal learning and experiences => the ability and the intuition to apprehend X as right/wrong

Something about X (X causes harm, X promotes flourishing, X fosters altruism) => stimulus signals received via sensory apparatus and sent as nervous impulses to the brain

Brain => biological computer-like organ processing the received signals and readying output responses and/or perceptions, based on inbuilt algorithms and heuristics, with differing mechanisms for differing signals

Perception about X => intuition or determination that X is right/wrong (this happens subconsciously, not consciously), sometimes associated with/followed by relatively strong emotional feelings (depending on the X and the brain's wirings)

Philosophical/intellectual motivations => consciously determining/speculating what really are the specific mechanisms involved and what standard(s)/philosophy(ies) were used

I think your problem is that you conflate the how a metal detectors detects metal, with the metal itself. How the brain detects what's good, with good itself. I'm also not asking about the nature of the metal detectors, but the nature of the metal being detected.

If you think the brain detects and creates a subjective good, that's one thing. But we're talking about a objective good, which exists outside of our brain. I believe there is a non-natural objective good that exists outside of our brain, and our brains have the ability to perceive/detect it.

Here it is again, talking about "good" in a way that you have yet to demonstrate is a thing.

The post covers both the "metal detector" and the "metal", which is the act itself, not the "good" ... and how the metal detector was shaped. You, on the other hand, make no attempt to explain all the important aspects of morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

By appeal to moral facts. There’s more than one type of nnr ( just like there’s more than one type of nr). It wouldn’t really be possible to broadly characterize their justification further since they have different uses of the term “natural”...and some of them would seem very much like natural facts to natural realists and other non natural realists. Thats the issue with the category, in a nutshell, what do they mean by non natural facts, what is in that set, and which set of non natural facts is the right set of non natural facts to be called moral facts.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, and why shouldn’t we hurt people, Acro? Who or what decides these “oughts” that aren’t, according to you, at all related to physical well-being? Is “The Good” concerned with well-being? Yes, or no?

It’s all related to being, being a good person.

When you say or I say hurting people is wrong, it implies that we ought or should  not hurt people. This as true for me as it for you.

It the difference between saying people were hurt, and hurting people is wrong.

*sigh*

Why is hurting people wrong? Why is not hurting people right? Chasing you in a circle is getting old, Acro.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn’t imply that at all, anyway. You need an evaluative premise to get from is to ought.

How many times in how many threads will this have to be explained to you.

You’re like a pull string doll that has a grand total of three things to say. Each of them as woefully wrong as the next.