Argument from infinite authority.

[genkaus]

1. The command to not torture a child for fun is that of infinite degree in humans and it's to the ultimate degree.
(That is the "should not do" is to the infinite degree with no limits.)
2. Therefore there is an ultimate authority to the infinite degree.
3. Such an authority can only be of an infinite metaphysical being.

I'm just brainstorming here.

1. is false. There is not evidence of its infiniteness or ultimacy. The very fact that many people actually have done so, thereby implying that they found it acceptable and permissible means that it is not a "should not do" to an infinite degree.

---

Hmm...well these premises seem true to me. When I think of the "should not" torture the child, the authority of it seems to have no limit, it's unlimited and to the highest degree possible.

So yes I think it leads to conclusion to God, but it's not necessarily circular to state how I feel of the "should not torture a child for fun" command in me.

The keywords being "seems to me". The limitation of your perception of authoritarian dictates of your instincts does not confer any degree of ultimacy and therefore divinity upon them.

[Anomalocaris]

Childrens are in fact tortured everyday in every part of the world. The authority that argues it should be be done seem to be of a sadly low order.

People can still chose to disobey the "should" command, even if it is that of infinite degree/ultimate degree.

So how is it "infinite" or "ultimate" in anyway outside the particular state of your brain, as might have been dictated by your mood, what you had for dinner, how your day has been going, and whether you are hell bent on a self-indulgent quest to convince yourself the dictates of your digestion somehow reflects not only a higher, but an ultimately lofty, authority?