How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

You do have an objective criteria, nutter.  Your subjective tastes are -facts-....about you.

No they are objective facts about the pizza, the crispiness of the crust, the ratio of cheese, the selections of toppings, the overall temperature, etc..

I have established that this pizza is objectively good, by providing you a variety of objective facts about the pizza.

You need an objective standard by which to measure objectiveness.

If you have nothing to go by, you're an arbitrarist. If pizza tastes good just because, that seems arbitrary to me.

If pizza tastes good because you like the way it tastes, that's subjective. It tasting good is subjective to you.

If pizza is considered tasty because it contains certain ingredients, is crispy to a specific degree, etc., and according to some measure, it is tasty, that's objectivism.

[Belacqua]

Reasonable ... Plausible ...

I'm not sure proof is the right word here anyway, and even so why do we always need that anyway?

It's reasonable to say promoting well-being is good. It's also reasonable to say that it's a good goal to strive for.

The majority of people can even disagree with this, and it would still be reasonable.

"Reasonable" seems like a fair word to me. 

But that's certainly not the same as "factual" or "self-evident." 

Should we back off a little, and say "in my opinion wellbeing is a reasonable goal, although I have no way of proving this"?

[The Grand Nudger]

At what point is your lack of familiarity with these terms my problem?

I accurately describe moral realism to you, natural and non natural, and you argue against it by reference to your own confusion.

[Acrobat]

If pizza is considered tasty because it contains certain ingredients, is crispy to a specific degree, etc., and according to some measure, it is tasty, that's objectivism.

Yes that's correct for us pizza taste realist. All pizza taste realism requires, is that we acknowledge that good pizza, is based on objective facts about the pizza.

If everyone really thought about it, they'd realize they are pizza taste realist too, but the spaghetti lobby has made people reluctant to acknowledge this.

[The Grand Nudger]

If pizza is considered tasty because it contains certain ingredients, is crispy to a specific degree, etc., and according to some measure, it is tasty, that's objectivism.

Negatron. That some person finds some pizza tasty due to their own peculiar likes is a fact about that person. It’s objectivrly true, but since it’s about them...in moral theory, it’s “subjective”.

Realism - facts of a matter
Subjectivism - facts of a person
Relativism - facts of a culture
Error Theory - not facts at all

[Acrobat]

If pizza is considered tasty because it contains certain ingredients, is crispy to a specific degree, etc., and according to some measure, it is tasty, that's objectivism.

Negatron. That some person finds some pizza tasty due to their own peculiar likes is a fact about that person.  It’s objectivrly true, but since it’s about them...in moral theory, it’s “subjective”.

Realism - facts of a matter
Subjectivism - facts of a person
Relativism - facts of a culture
Error Theory - not facts at all

But it's not facts about a person, it's facts about the pizza,  certain ingredients, crispy to a specific degree, etc... as long as good pizza is based on such objective facts, good is objective .

[GrandizerII]

Reasonable ... Plausible ...

I'm not sure proof is the right word here anyway, and even so why do we always need that anyway?

It's reasonable to say promoting well-being is good. It's also reasonable to say that it's a good goal to strive for.

The majority of people can even disagree with this, and it would still be reasonable.

"Reasonable" seems like a fair word to me. 

But that's certainly not the same as "factual" or "self-evident." 

Should we back off a little, and say "in my opinion wellbeing is a reasonable goal, although I have no way of proving this"?

It's a goal. Of course I have no way to prove it in the same way I have no way to prove that passing the exams is a reasonable goal. If I want to receive that uni degree, I ought to pass the exam. It's not a matter of proof or disproof.

That's the ought bit.

The is bit: Harm is bad. Sounds reasonable to me. Can I prove it? Not in the strong sense, but it seems almost tautological.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your likes and dislikes about pizza are objectively true facts about you.

Subjectivism and realism are both cognitivist positions. They both have an identical commitment to facts. They differ in the point of reference for those facts.

If you wanted to argue against that commitment, competently, you would offer a non cognitivist objection. That “good” in this context is not truth- alike. It’s nit something that even can be true or false. It’s more like......”yum”.

I’m not really referring to facts about myself or facts about the pizza, just making a satisfied grunting sound in a complex way.

For the umpteenth time, learn the positions and terms. Stop griping to me about how realism isn’t true. It may not be, but to know what you’re disagreeing with you will have to learn the terms and positions.

[GrandizerII]

If pizza is considered tasty because it contains certain ingredients, is crispy to a specific degree, etc., and according to some measure, it is tasty, that's objectivism.

Negatron. That some person finds some pizza tasty due to their own peculiar likes is a fact about that person. It’s objectivrly true, but since it’s about them...in moral theory, it’s “subjective”.

Realism - facts of a matter
Subjectivism - facts of a person
Relativism - facts of a culture
Error Theory - not facts at all

It's not about my likes or dislikes in that part, though. If we assume there is some perhaps scientific standard by which we can determine whether pizza is tasty or not based on things about the pizza, wouldn't that be objective?

It's like the whole thing about objective beauty. You know how there is a way in math to measure that using a standard based in symmetry and such. That's what I mean.

[The Valkyrie]

How to defeat any argument for god...

Hit theperson making the claim with a hammer