Arguments for God in Quran.

[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......?

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

Now what is that eye?

Still your baby, you tell me.....do your own work.

[Edwardo Piet]

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

If guide means what it means to me, then it won't be anything cosmic or magic so your argument won't work, watch:

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

The source of my guidance is my own brain. 'I' am my guide.

So, if you really think I can come to your conclusion despite whatever definition of guidance I've used, are you trying to say you just proved that I'm God?

[Mystic]

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

Now what is that eye?

Still your baby, you tell me.....do your own work.

Maybe, if you tell me, I can help see where you are coming from.

I think my conclusion that it's really not thinking about morality that makes people conclude it can be from other then God, but thinking about and reflecting, one becomes certain not only of it being from God, but God's light, not only God's light, but his light being a living Guide we are connected to.

And then there is arguments as to why it is a human. And that has to do with not having unnecessary delegation in leadership.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't matter where I'm coming from, it's your argument.  Do work.  I shouldn't have to hobble this gish galloping horse.  That's your job too.....

[Mystic]

The source of my guidance is my own brain. 'I' am my guide.

Exactly, you would have to be your own guide. Yet "you" need guidance. That's a paradox.

So what option is left?

[The Grand Nudger]

If Hammys god then..clearly, allah can't be.  Hold on..lemme ask hammy, since he;s god.

Hey, Lord Ham...this allah cat, legit?   You know that guy..or?

[stretch3172]

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.

It's been proven valid, but not sound. Many Christians and Muslims have no problem assuming that all morality is ultimately derived from the will of God. Biblically speaking, that may very well be true, but I'm not convinced that it has to be. Assuming God exists, it may be that He is simply capable of perfectly knowing universal moral axioms/laws, which somehow exist independently from Him in a way similar to mathematical and logical axioms. But if morality is ultimately decided by God, then we would need a separate argument to prove that premise. Otherwise, the soundness can't be shown logically.

[Edwardo Piet]

The source of my guidance is my own brain. 'I' am my guide.

Exactly, you would have to be your own guide. Yet "you" need guidance. That's a paradox.

So what option is left?

Um, myself? My brain? I already picked it. Where's the paradox?

---

If Hammys god then..clearly, allah can't be.  Hold on..lemme ask hammy, since he;s god.

Hey, Lord Ham...this allah cat, legit?   You know that guy..or?

He'd be full of shit if he weren't so nonexistent.

---

Yet it's been proven time and time again.

It's been proven valid, but not sound. Many Christians and Muslims have no problem assuming that all morality is ultimately derived from the will of God. Biblically speaking, that may very well be true, but I'm not convinced that it has to be. Assuming God exists, it may be that He is simply capable of perfectly knowing universal moral axioms/laws, which somehow exist independently from Him in a way similar to mathematical and logical axioms. But if morality is ultimately decided by God, then we would need a separate argument to prove that premise. Otherwise, the soundness can't be shown logically.

^ This guy gets it.

Looks like we have a somewhat rational theist on the board, a rare breed indeed!

Great to see you around

[The Grand Nudger]

@Stretch
If/only/if -- xnor can;t be applied to statements such as the one contained in premise two...you've just established why.  

A biconditional is a valid argument, but the natural language employed is not a biconditional existential. Hilariously...I've been explaining this to Mystic since he was a deist. Morality exists regardless of whether or not a god does.

[Edwardo Piet]

And I also asked for the definition of that . . .


You also need to justify premise 2.

Both these premises should be reasoned to... they should themselves be conclusions from yet another argument with premises, and so on. You don't come into this world and start with premises from the Quran (and even if you did it would be rational to question them).

Did you read what I wrote in parenthesis? If so what's your issue?

I've already dealt with it twice lol.

I'm asking you to define what you put in the parentheses. It's not any clearer than the definition outside of it.

The funny part is, I dealt with what you put in parentheses with my own parentheses.

Did you read what I put in the parentheses? Lol.

Here, let me help:

1. There is such thing as real guidance (moral guidance that love acts by)

Define "real guidance." (What is this "moral guidance that love acts by" according to you?)

Bold added.