Arguments for God in Quran.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you incapable of following your own thoughts?  

Your reformulated argument is that morality is a guide.  That's your premise 1.  Unless you'd like to reformulate. Asking me (or anyone) the source of my moral actions is redundant. I possess a moral system. Morality exists.

Morality is a guide.

[Edwardo Piet]

“It’s clear we’re being guided by something, therefore a guide exists” is circular reasoning.

Well, that would certainly be beginning the question. Because it would be "We are guided therefore there's a guide!" which would beg the question: But what guidance?

He indeed demonstrated circular reasoning thereafter though because he didn't just attempt to support an unsupported premise with another unsupported premise, but he then tried to support that premise with the previous premise that he just failed to support it with.

So, at first he was just failing to demonstrate the guidance required for the guide existed, which begged the question by replacing the question of the guide's existence with the question of the guidance existence. But as soon as he said it was true by definition and attempted to make BOTH premises support EACH OTHER that totally became circular reasoning, yeah.

[Mystic]

I am using abstracts to get the details.

I am going to wait for LadyForCamus.

[stretch3172]

No, the conclusion follows because premise 1 states that something exists and premise 2 states that god needs to exist for that itself to exist therefore the conclusion does follow.

The problem is the premises are bullshit and MK doesn't seem to comprehend that you can make a perfectly valid argument for the existence of anything but without soundness it's doomed.

Agreed. Just for fun, here's the proof: 

To prove: G (God exists).                                             

1. M (Moral guidance exists) [Assumption]                                                   
2. M↔G [Assumption]
3. G [lines 1-2, Biconditional Elimination].

The second premise is the biggest obstacle. 

[Mystic]

No, the conclusion follows because premise 1 states that something exists and premise 2 states that god needs to exist for that itself to exist therefore the conclusion does follow.

The problem is the premises are bullshit and MK doesn't seem to comprehend that you can make a perfectly valid argument for the existence of anything but without soundness it's doomed.

Agreed. Just for fun, here's the proof: 

To prove: G (God exists).                                             

1. M (Moral guidance exists) [Assumption]                                                   
2. M↔G [Assumption]
3. G [lines 1-2, Biconditional Elimination].

The second premise is the biggest obstacle. 

Yet it's been proven time and time again.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd say an insurmountable obstacle..since it's going to be painfully obvious even to a believer that moral guidance comes from places other than their god.

Aren't they always railing against it......? It's a simple failure of condition. Ya just can't get from m to g in that way.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is guidance.
And if you think about long enough, yes, you realize it requires a source.

Calling it some kind of cosmic guidance just so you can attempt to say "There must be a cosmic guide then" is just word games.

I could just as easily say "It feels like cosmic guidance to some people, but it's actually a benign cosmic force." and suddenly the illusion of your word games should become clear to you. Because forces don't require an enforcer.

You can't just define things into existence.

Otherwise I could speak of existent spell-casting wizards, and you can't say they don't exist because I'm not talking about nonexistent spell-casting wizards I'm talking about existent spell-casting wizards. They must exist, by definition!

This is why the ontological argument is so terrible... when it says a maxmially great being must exist because maximal greatness requires existence to be maximally great.

All you're doing is replacing one thing you've failed to demonstrate (the guide), with another thing you've failed to demonstrate (guidance)... which just begs the question.

SOME forms of guidance exist, sure. But so do some kinds of guides, but that doesn't mean this magical cosmic "real guidance" you speak of exist, nor does it mean a superguide/God exists. So it's also important to try not to equivocate....

[Silver]

Yet it's been proven time and time again.

You keep using words like proof(s), proven, evidence, yet I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

[Mystic]

I'd say an insurmountable obstacle..since it's going to be painfully obvious even to a believer that moral guidance comes from places other than their god.

Aren't they always railing against it......?

Before our act, we must perceive a way forward. I would say morality is also a living perception.

Now what is that eye?

---

There is guidance.
And if you think about long enough, yes, you realize it requires a source.

Calling it some kind of cosmic guidance just so you can attempt to say "There must be a cosmic guide then" is just word games.

I could just as easily say "It feels like cosmic guidance to some people, but it's actually a benign cosmic force." and suddenly the illusion of your word games should become clear to you. Because forces don't require an enforcer.

You can't just define things into existence.

Otherwise I could speak of existent spell-casting wizards, and you can't say they don't exist because I'm not talking about nonexistent spell-casting wizards I'm talking about existent spell-casting wizards. They must exist, by definition!

This is why the ontological argument is so terrible... when it says a maxmially great being must exist because maximal greatness requires existence to be maximally great.

All you're doing is replacing one thing you've failed to demonstrate (the guide), with another thing you've failed to demonstrate (guidance)... which just begs the question.

SOME forms of guidance exist, sure. But so do some kinds of guides, but that doesn't mean this magical cosmic "real guidance" you speak of exist, nor does it mean a superguide/God exists. So it's also important to try not to equivocate....

I'm trying to use abstraction, let guidance mean what it means to you.

Then see what it is. And yes, what's it's guiding source.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're a lost cause, MK.

Morality comes from our brains which comes from evolution via natural selection which comes from earth which comes from space which comes from--- and so on.... cause and effect.

No God required.