(July 2, 2013 at 1:59 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You are simply using the Argument from Morality, only you've tried to smuggle it in by claiming that something which we can derive instructions from requires an intelligent agent as an axiom. As I have tried to mention, we receive instructions from the sensation of pain, but it requires no sentient agent, simply nerves telling us what is and is not good for our survival.Until you can prove that instructions require an intelligent agent, you're dead in the water.
Er, I KNOW I am running a moral argument for a god!! That's like me pointing out to you that you are 'simply using words to express yourself'! Blimey. Labelling an argument doesn't refute it. Label it 'the stupid argument from morality' if you like, that won't show it to be stupid.
But the moral argument for a god's existence has as one of its premises that morality requires a god (the other premise is that morality exists). I am arguing in support of that premise.
I have addressed your point about pains etc. When we experience pain we are prompted to direct ourselves away from the source of the pain. But we are agents. So the kind of directing and favouring that you are locating and talking about is directing and favouring carried out by an agent. Ourselves. It underlines my point, it doesn't challenge it.
Morality instructs and favours. The only thing I'm aware of that can instruct and favour is an agent. So, unless you can provide some good reason to think otherwise, morality must be an agent.
