Conversion

[Ryft]

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) ...

What the hell? The TAG does not even deal with morality. How can it "fail" at something it was not even addressing in the first place? The TAG addresses metaethics (the ground of moral order), not ethics (values and morals).

... plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one, so have fun with that.

And here is the standard question-begging mess I was referring to. If you want to simply assume the truth of your view, knock yourself out. But it is not going to be convincing to anyone except the already convinced, which is not terribly impressive. Like I said, a compelling refutation of TAG would have to not engage in fallacious tactics.

Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning; i.e., that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum ... in short, it's bollocks!

Rrrright. Just like evolution teaches that humans evolved from apes. Good job, Kirk Cameron—err, I mean Kyuuketsuki. I doubt you could have described the TAG any more erroneously if you tried. Well... no, I take that back. You probably could get it even more wrong. (And I am going to cite you in a blog post, linked to your post, of course, in a new series I am going to develop called Atheists Say The Darndest Things.)