MikeTheInfidel Wrote:Is it just me, or is Inigo defining morality as something not made by humans, and thus declaring it must not be made by humans?
It is just you. My definition of morality (which is partial) is encapsulated in the premises of my arguments. I define morality as, in part anyway, consisting in instructions and favourings whose existence confers reason to comply with them.
So that's the definition. My arguments have a god as a CONCLUSION. In other words, I haven't put god in, I've gotten god out. Arguments just extract the implications of their premises. That's what I've done. I've shown that the implication of that definition of morality is that morality is composed of the instructions of a god. (that is not 'question begging'. If you insist that is 'question begging' then all valid arguments are question begging and it is no longer a flaw! An argument begs the question when one of its premises asserts the truth of the conclusion. None of my premises do that!)
Now, you might think that this shows there to be something wrong with the definition (not sure why you'd think that - but some people decide what something can and cannot assume before investigating the matter, which is a bit like deciding who committed the murder before looking at the evidence. but meh). Well, what? In other words, look at those premises and figure out which one is false.
