The moral argument, for atheism!

[Mr.wizard]

If that god is the source of objective morality and they must be good, then what ever moral decision they chose must be good. That is the way the argument is set up.

Incorrect.  Your reading comprehension skills are for shit.

How, show me in premise #1 where it does not say that god is the source of morality and must be good?

[Foxaèr]

How, show me in premise #1 where it does not say that god is the source of morality and must be good?

How is that related to your objection?

Premise one: God is morally good.
Premise two: A moral god must share with his creation in such a provable way the morality they are to abide by.
Conclusion: Such a revelation as in premise two has never happened; thus god is not real.

It's not rocket science.

[Mr.wizard]

How, show me in premise #1 where it does not say that god is the source of morality and must be good?

How is that related to your objection?

Premise one: God is morally good.
Premise two: A moral god must share with his creation in such a provable way the morality they are to abide by.
Conclusion: Such a revelation as in premise two has never happened; thus god is not real.

It's not rocket science.

Because god is established as the source of morality and must be good. So any moral decision god makes must be good. So then how in premise 2 can you say god must share with his creation to be morally good? See you changed the wording in premise #1 by leaving out the part about god being the source of morality and changed to God is morally good. It's a totally different ballgame if God is following a set of moral laws rather than creating them.

[Foxaèr]

So then how in premise 2 can you say god must share with his creation to be morally good?

What good parent doesn't?

[Angrboda]

 Premise 2 is in conflict with premise 1, therefore the conclusion couldn't possibly tie it together.

Explain to me how a moral super being has no obligation to reveal morality in such a way to his creations that leaves no room for denial?

Not sure I see what Mr. Wizard is saying about premise 2 conflicting with 1.

However, if morality were not deterministically discoverable such that true from false morals could be determined, that fact alone would lead to more immorality rather than less simply through sheer accident of good people mistaking false morality for true. I doubt that's compatible with traditional attributes of God.

[Mr.wizard]

Explain to me how a moral super being has no obligation to reveal morality in such a way to his creations that leaves no room for denial?

Not sure I see what Mr. Wizard is saying about premise 2 conflicting with 1.

However, if morality were not deterministically discoverable such that true from false morals could be determined, that fact alone would lead to more immorality rather than less simply through sheer accident of good people mistaking false morality for true.  I doubt that's compatible with traditional attributes of God.

I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

[Jehanne]

Not sure I see what Mr. Wizard is saying about premise 2 conflicting with 1.

However, if morality were not deterministically discoverable such that true from false morals could be determined, that fact alone would lead to more immorality rather than less simply through sheer accident of good people mistaking false morality for true.  I doubt that's compatible with traditional attributes of God.

I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

If God said that 2 + 2 = 5, you would believe him?  I would say, "Surely, God, you must be joking!"

[Mr.wizard]

I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

If God said that 2 + 2 = 5, you would believe him?  I would say, "Surely, God, you must be joking!"

If your premise established that god was the source of math and his answers must be right, how would I know the difference?

[Foxaèr]

You keep digging that hole, Jehanne. I can't keep bailing you out.

[Angrboda]

Not sure I see what Mr. Wizard is saying about premise 2 conflicting with 1.

However, if morality were not deterministically discoverable such that true from false morals could be determined, that fact alone would lead to more immorality rather than less simply through sheer accident of good people mistaking false morality for true.  I doubt that's compatible with traditional attributes of God.

I don't see how a God can be set up as the source of morality that must be good and then have moral obligations. If god was the source of morality and god said that not revealing objective morals is in fact moral, how could you argue with that? Not only have you already established that the god must be morally good but you wouldn't have your own morality to judge that god because it is already established that the god himself is the source of morality.

I believe her point was that the assumption that God is all good and the author of morals was at odds with the observation that he doesn't inform us unambiguously of the content of those morals. That's a standard reductio ad absurdum argument, which, if sound, provides reasonable grounds for rejecting the initial assumption. You seem to not understand how arguments work.