The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[Edwardo Piet]

Personally, I'd ditch premises 1 and 2, 4 and 5.  No believer would accept 1, 2, or 4.

2 is not required but makes it more explict.

The other premises are required for the argument.

Of course no believer would believe them but the point is for them to challenge them and constructing a valid argument is better than just yelling "non-sequitur" at them. I'm not saying you're wrong (you're not)... but the point of my argument was to counter their argument. However on the following matter you are wrong:

If we ditch premises 1, 2, 4 and 5 as you suggest we are left with only premises 3, 6 and 7 (which instead become premises 1 2 and 3 of a shorter argument) and the two conclusions:

Premise 1. If all other relevant reasons are equal then it is more rational to be parsimonious.
Conclusion 1: It is more rational to believe in objective moral values without the existence of God if the existence of God is not required for objective values to exist.
Premise 2: There is simply no reason to believe that the existence of objective moral values require God's existence.
Premise 3: Objective moral values do exist.
Final conclusion: It is more rational to not believe in God than to believe in God.

And that doesn't even make any sense. It's not a complete argument. Conclusion 1 doesn't follow simply from premise 1 alone and the final conclusion doesn't follow either.

---

Personally, I'd ditch premises 1 and 2, 4 and 5.  You don't need 3 either.  No believer would accept 1, 2, or 4.

Edited your post, I see... funny because that's your worst mistake on this thread yet.

Actually you do need premise 3. The point of the argument is that if objective moral values exist then it's more rational to believe in them without God. That's the entire point of the argument! How am I supposed to demonstrate that without spelling it out explicitly when that's the whole point of a logical argument?

Sheesh. You're still as terrible as you were with logic when you couldn't comprehend my valid argument whilst playing devil's advocate for pantheism back in 2012:

I made you look like a disingenuous prat at worst and an unthinking baboon at best back then (starting from premises I didn't even agree with, just like this one! You couldn't tell validity apart from soundness back then either!) and I'm doing it again to you now! Without it even requiring any effort lol.

Here's the thread back in 2012 where you couldn't follow a basic logical argument or accept my very basic point: https://atheistforums.org/thread-15511.html

You're very good at providing lots of evidence that you're really crap at debating logically, lol. But that's not the topic of this thread. Just... perhaps you should go read up on how logic actually works before commenting on a logical argument. Validity =/= soundness.

So if we remove premise 3 as well (the original premsie 3, not the new premise 3) we're left with just premise 6 and 7 (which become the new 1 and 2) and conclusions 1 and 2.

That becomes:

Conclusion 1: It is more rational to believe in objective moral values without the existence of God if the existence of God is not required for objective values to exist.
Premise 1: There is simply no reason to believe that the existence of objective moral values require God's existence.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Final conclusion: It is more rational to not believe in God than to believe in God.

Note that you want me to keep the two premises that come after the first conclusion... which makes no sense.

And if I be generous and rearrange it so both conclusions follow after those two premises we are left with it becomes:

Premise 1: There is simply no reason to believe that the existence of objective moral values require God's existence.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion 1: It is more rational to believe in objective moral values without the existence of God if the existence of God is not required for objective values to exist.
Final conclusion: It is more rational to not believe in God than to believe in God

And that still makes no fucking sense. Do you not actually know how logical argumentation works? Because you consistently do a very good damn job of showing that you don't. Conflating soundness with validity is embarrassing and yet you do it all the time. It's almost as if you're pretending not to understand on purpose... what's the word for that? Oh yeah, the word is "disingenuous". Or another term is "intentionally obtuse."

The problem with you, Khem, is you make the rest of us atheists look bad.

EDIT: I have decided to put you back on block. But this time for different reasons. This time you are not frustrating me in the slighest, I am merely laughing at you. But I have decided that you literally have nothing interesting to offer in a logical discussion and since I am not interested in irrelevant scientific facts (as much as I enjoy science, I'm not interested in seeing you posting scientific facts when you are incapable of telling whether they address the argument in question or not)... and I don't find you amusing or fun to be around either: The only possible reason to respond to you left is to explain to others why you're illogical to stop you spreading your incorrect bullshit all over AF (just like I would with a theist or anyone else who is wrong). But I think that as long as people are aware of that thread from 2012 (that I posted here in this post) where you made so much of an ass of yourself that you violated the Law of Identity and yet still wouldn't admit you're wrong (when you suggested that even if "God" only meant "Universe" then not believing in God wouldn't mean not believing in the universe... it's like saying if A=B then not believing in B is not believing in A... which violates the law of identity because it equates to saying that not believing in A is not not believing in A)... and humiliated yourself fully through not understanding the distinction between validity and soundness. Finally, you never admitting you were wrong (even today) which means you are either still too stupid to understand the most basic of logic or you're too intellectually dishonest to admit you are wrong (and there was even another thread where you argued that in other universes 2+2 could =5 without you equivocating which violates basic modal logic....).... and if anyone can't see how poor you are at logic after looking at that thread... then myself nor any other rational person is never going to be able to convince them anyway.



I actually consider you in this category. You get science and evidence but you sure as hell don't get logic.

So seen as you are beyond hope, and responding to you merely feeds your pointless digressions (responding to you is just a waste of time and energy seen as you haven't even progressed in the last 6 years)... it's back on block you go. Maybe one day you'll understand how a logical argument actually works (or, likely, you do understand but keep behaving as if you don't... it's disingenuousness on a level that I consider it borderline trolling on your part if you really aren't just stupid).

When someone is so illogical that they won't admit they are wrong or see that they are wrong when they very clearly are straight-up violating the Law of Identity... the most basic law of logic... and won't even accept the truth of a logical tautology... then such a person is definitely not worth responding to. You've been given 6 years to learn you were wrong or be honest about your wrongness... and it's just either sheer stupidity or illogicality on the highest of levels. If you're willing to disagree with someone when they say A=A and if you're willing to insist that when you say A=not A then you're not wrong and you're still right.... then you're literally either as illogical as it gets or as intellectually dishonest as it gets... and very much never ever worth responding to in a rational discussion. Sorry Khem, but I can't think of a better reason to block someone that they would rather say squares were circles than admit they were wrong. Back on block you go. Talking to you is nothing but a waste of time, energy and it clogs up threads with your irrelevant digressions too. I shall not feed your digressions anymore.

As for this thread specifically well: If you were to respond to this thread you were supposed to actually address my argument. I said premise 2 was redundant because it is... but like I said I think it helps make things clearer. But no, you didn't want to remove just the second premise you wanted to remove almost the entire argument making it completely incoherent LOL. That's not addressing my argument at all! And that's completely illogical! You don't understand at all! OMG that was dumb and I still find it hilarious even now LOL. And when you say that theists aren't going to accept the premises anyway.... duh. And when you say that there was no reason to take their argument seriously anyway.... duh. That's not the fucking point is it?! The fucking point was I was making a valid argument against theirs! This is not about being pragmatic this is about me attempting exactly what I said I was attempting in the OP Literally pretty much all you ever do is digress with irrelevant trivial truths! It's fucking pathetic! Bahahahah. Okay anyway bye.