How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

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?

I wonder if any of us can justify these things. 

Why shouldn't we hurt people? Because it works against the wellbeing of them and our society. 

Why is it bad to work against that wellbeing? Because we want wellbeing.

Why is it good to want wellbeing? Because we just want it.....

If these ethical principles ultimately come down to habit, or preferences, then they may just change. But if we assert that they are true things, then they are true things that can't be proved by science. Some people would call that immaterial and transcendental. Wittgenstein calls it supernatural. It doesn't matter so much about the terminology. 


It seems you are arguing that "wellbeing is something we should value" is a true fact (not a preference) that can't be proved by science. So (I haven't read the whole thread carefully), it makes sense to ask you: why is the desirability of wellbeing a fact, and not just a preference? Who or what decides these “oughts”?

I don't agree it ultimately boils down to tastes and individual preferences but rather there is something that makes sense about defining bad as that which causes harm, for example. From an evolutionary perspective and individual perspective, it makes sense to see it this way.

What I mean is, if you look at the two statements below:

Harm is bad.

Harm is good.

One of them is almost true by definition. The other no rational person would agree can make sense. It's certainly not practical at least. Imagine a world in which the standard is harm is good.

Yes, in real life, things get really complicated but at the core the first statement just seems self-evident.