Atheism and morality

[Angrboda]

Well, I'd point out more about your use of the law of parsimony, and in particular, the distinction between the strong and weak versions of it, but I'm feeling lazy, so perhaps another time. Unless you are employing the strong version, the law of parsimony is not a deductive inference, but merely a probabilistic one, and therefore your syllogism becomes one of determining the most likely explanation given a range of explanations, and, under that view, must then be probabilistically evaluated in comparison to all other hypotheses. It is no longer a deductively valid syllogism in its present form, given your interpretations.

And you're making more arguments from silence. The fact that we are ignorant of the moral authority's absence, or ignorant of the disconnect between agent and instruction, is not evidence of its non-absence, nor evidence that the agent and instruction are unified.

You still have failed to provide anything more than a bare assertion that your account explains moral desert. Most here, as well as many moral philosophers, would argue that your account does just the opposite. How is the fact that some agent can make my eternity unpleasant lead to the conclusion that I am deserving to be treated that way by this possibly non-existent agent for failing to satisfy its desires?