RE: How to easily defeat any argument for God
August 15, 2019 at 11:45 am
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2019 at 11:55 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Realism isn’t unsalvageable garbage anymore?
Honestly, this is just a repeat of the last however many pages. Where you’ll shit all over some very specific term and, in the end, after having had its accurate meaning explained to you, decide it’s trash.
Why not skip to the end, why not ask a question that proceeds from what you actually do believe, rather than one which proceeds from your confusion over terms you refuse to learn for yourself?
You think “good” and “god” are synonyms. Non natural realism directly and explicitly rejects the supernatural as an explanation for moral facts. Full stop.
Now, as for Moore’s open question argument, it was long ago addressed. Moore retracted his support for that argument when the nestled fallacies were described - which you would know, if you did any research for yourself on the matter.
Both synthetic and analytic naturalism can proceed in the face of that objection.
Just as naturalism can proceed in the face of humes is ought objection.
Each mans contribution to moral theory was in highlighting some issue that needed to be worked out, a gap in semantics, that all contemporary moral theories have been firmed to account for.
Honestly, this is just a repeat of the last however many pages. Where you’ll shit all over some very specific term and, in the end, after having had its accurate meaning explained to you, decide it’s trash.
Why not skip to the end, why not ask a question that proceeds from what you actually do believe, rather than one which proceeds from your confusion over terms you refuse to learn for yourself?
You think “good” and “god” are synonyms. Non natural realism directly and explicitly rejects the supernatural as an explanation for moral facts. Full stop.
Now, as for Moore’s open question argument, it was long ago addressed. Moore retracted his support for that argument when the nestled fallacies were described - which you would know, if you did any research for yourself on the matter.
Both synthetic and analytic naturalism can proceed in the face of that objection.
Just as naturalism can proceed in the face of humes is ought objection.
Each mans contribution to moral theory was in highlighting some issue that needed to be worked out, a gap in semantics, that all contemporary moral theories have been firmed to account for.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
