How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

No.

If the goal is well being, then there are objective moral actions (based on the objective laws of the universe) that will increase, have no effect, or decrease well being.

Take chess for example. The rules are arbitrary, but once the goal is decided on (winning the game), there are objective truths about the best moves to make, that will lead to that goal


It is not opinion.

Is it simply my opinion that, with respect to the goal of well being, life is preferable to death?

Why do atheists like yourself get tripped over a fairly straightforward question? Is it that scary?

I’m not asking about things in respect to the goal, but about the nature of the goal itself.

Here I’ll ask the question again, let’s see if you can answer this time without the song and dance.

The goal in your moral frame work is the maximization of human well being.

You come up to me and tell me that I ought to do things that are beneficial to well being, and shouldn’t do things that are detrimental to wellbeing.  

If I reject this, telling you no, I’ll do whatever I like to do regardless of whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to the wellbeing of others. In doing so have I rejected an objective truth, like 1+1=2, or the earth is round?

I haven’t right?

All I’ve rejected is some goal you wish I subscribe to, some subjective goal you want me to subscribe to.

Once again, conflating the "oughts" with the "ises" and confusing yourself in the process.

1+1=2 is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is".

Beneficial/detrimental to wellbeing is not a goal, it's an expression of an "is". You ought to consider one's wellbeing is the goal.