Quote:Oh look someone has left a turd ball on this thread without flushing it down. Your so called impeccable argument just is a massive turd ball of a mess. Do you really think morality must be the sort of thing which can only make sense if there is a genie standing behind it as guarantor? Your premise that morality must be so and so simply smuggles in the conclusion you're keen to arrive at. I'm not sure if you've managed to put your own doubts to rest but I seriously doubt that you've managed to pawn any doubts off on any one here.
You can't refute an argument by calling it a turd ball. The arguments were deductively valid and they also possessed extremely plausible premises. indeed, no one yet has cast the slightest doubt on them. They have either ignored them, attributed quite different views to me, or offered examples that merely confirm their truth.
You say I have smuggled in my conclusion. Once again, if I have done that just point out the premise that you dispute and dispute it. If you can't do that then what I've done is present you with a very good argument that leads to a conclusion that you dislike. Deal with it. When did you start thinking that the truth would be what you want it to be?
You then accuse me of lacking originality. That's untrue and irrelevant. To my knowledge nobody has defended quite the view I am defending. For the view I am defending is not that morality is composed of the commands/favourings/instructions of the Judaeo Christian god, but that morality is the composed of the commands of a vengeful god who is not perfectly morally good. My arguments, if anything, only underscore the non-existence of the Christian god. But anyway, the originality of an argument has nothing to do with its soundness or validity. So I'm unsure why you mentioned it unless you're just a horrible person.
