The Objective Moral Values Argument AGAINST The Existence Of God

[Edwardo Piet]

Of that, I'd only keep 1, 2 and 3....the conclusion didn't follow to begin with.  The strongest conclusion we can arrive at rationally and parsimoniously is that it is more rational to accept the existence of objective moral values not being contingent on gods or demonstrative of gods....not that it's more rational not to believe in a god in any general sense.  Any given believer can agree with 1, 2, and 3.  

Bahahhaha. I took you off block temporaily just to see how poorly you dealt with what I said first. And I can't help laughing at this. The conclusion didn't follow to begin with? LMAO yes it does. One of the fucking premises is that objective moral values exist which is in agreement with the argument I'm countering... the argument deals with the fact that if objective morality exists then it's more rational to believe that it exists without God. It doesn't just refute the above argument (although that was why I made it): the argument clearly demonstrates that it's more rational to not believe in God if objective moral values exist.

Look dude if you think the premises don't follow and you ignore some of the actual premises then it's not even funny at this point it's just sad and pathetic of you. So I'm not going to even take you off block to laugh at you. Consider this my last post to you and you can strawman me as much as you like dude... anyone truly smart is able to see that my argument follows logically and you are completely full of shit.

Perhaps it is not clear why your objection doesn't succeed without premise 2 but that's why I said I am keeping premise 2 as it makes things clearer. With premise 2 of course it follows and it seems to follow even without it.

Premise 1 literally states that the only possible rational reason to believe God exists in general is if objective moral values exist! And one of the premises is that they do exist! There is literally no way to follow all my premises without arriving with the final conclusion! Sheesh you're slow.

---

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?

Well, I don't need it.  It's redundant to the new 1.

---

Try rearranging them, 3/1/2?

LOL no the part you are quoting me on is the part where I'm talking about only two premises and two conclusions being left! There isn't even a 3 to rearrange, lmao.

What are you babbling on about, lmao.

The whole point of an argument is to make things explicit. If all that mattered was a short argument that is valid I could make this one:

Premise 1: Objective moral values exists.
Premise 2: If God exists there can be no objective moral values.
Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist.

This argument is completely parallel to their argument but is no better than theirs. The whole point was to spell out how even if objective moral values do exist it's much more rational to believe in objective moral values without believing in God. And you can't even understand my argument and say it doesn't follow all while you want me to remove premises so the argument either makes no sense at all or remove them and rearrange them so I'm making an argument no better than the theist's LOL.

Sheesh.... okay yeah... bored of laughing at you now. You're on block but I'm gonna resist looking at your posts to just laugh at them because if you really can't see that my argument is valid without actually pointing out any mistakes in my argument then I'm all laughed out at this point and you're clearly not worth discussing with. You're literally more willing to violate the law of identity than admit you're wrong and your repeated digressions, strawmen and irrelevancy just leads me to believe that if this were my forum I'd have permabanned you ages ago for being a complete waste of forum space. But this isn't my forum so you're in look there. Whether you're extremely disingenuous or extremely stupid in either case you're literally too illogical to actually discuss with people and this *is* a discussion forum. So anyway. Yawn. I'll stop looking at your nonsensical posts for now at least and hopefully forever.

Or I could just look but realize you're literally just trolling the fuck out of me or may as well be because your responses are equally as useless.

It all seems to come down to you really not understanding logical arguments and how they actually work. You're just a waste of time. Goodbye.

You are probably going to make some other bullshit error and insist I made an error but I'm tired of dealing with obvious B.S. and a failure of logic on your part. I'm not going to even bother correcting you this time even though I obviously very easily could do so. If I'm to spend my time correcting someone I'll spend it on someone more worth my time than you are.