How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

The possible worlds examples from earlier.

In one world, there is holocaust god

In another world, there is buddy god

In both worlds god has god-ness, but if good-ness is a synonym for god-ness, in holocaust gods world the holocaust is good, where’s in buddy gods world it is bad.

Whatever the god of your world happens to be, is the shape of goodness. Murder god makes murder good, anti murder god makes murder bad. There’s nothing about -murder- that’s good or bad.

If, however, goodness is it’s own thing, then we can make a determination of goodness across all possible worlds, and even in reference to the gods of possible worlds. If there is some specific and objective standard, then there’s something about murder that would make it bad in both worlds. This is the minimum bar for objectivity, for realism.

Such is the case for intuitionist arguments. Non natural realism. The idea that we directly apprehend good or bad....and that any being with functional moral agency could stand in the presence of murder god, and know that it was bad, regardless of whether or not it was a god.

The trouble is that the faithful hear “immaterial” or “non natural” and cream their pants. Thinking it gives them some warrant that it doesn’t.

By definition, all forms of realism require a standard apart from something’s self to establish its/their moral nature. There are no exceptions, not even for a god. That’s what realism means. Any other suggestion is other-than realism.

[GrandizerII]

The possible worlds examples from earlier.

In one world, there is holocaust god

In another world, there is buddy god

In both worlds god has god-ness, but if good-ness is a synonym for god-ness, in holocaust gods world the holocaust is good, where’s in buddy gods world it is bad.

Whatever the god of your world happens to be, is the shape of goodness.  Murder god makes murder good, anti murder god makes murder bad.  There’s nothing about -murder- that’s good or bad.  

If, however, goodness is it’s own thing, then we can make a determination of goodness across all possible worlds, and even in reference to the gods of possible worlds.  If there is some specific and objective standard, then there’s something about murder that would make it bad in both worlds.  This is the minimum bar for objectivity, for realism.

Such is the case for intuitionist arguments.  Non natural realism.  The idea that we directly apprehend good or bad....and that any being with functional moral agency could stand in the presence of murder god, and know that it was bad, regardless of whether or not it was a god.

The trouble is that the faithful hear “immaterial” or “non natural” and cream their pants.  Thinking it gives them some warrant that it doesn’t.  By definition, all forms of realism require a standard apart from something’s self to establish its/their moral nature.  There are no exceptions, not even for a god.

Ok, I got you now. Yep, I agree.

[Acrobat]

We're still doing the assigning of "right/wrong" (as a species), but we base the judgement on external acts.

Your light analogy, once again, indicates to me that you believe murder is wrong because of the Good. I can't accept that because it implies divine arbitrariness.

No I'm indicating that the reason both of us see wrong, is a result of the light, just as we see the objects in our rooms because of the light. You're making the mistake of conflating the object with the light of Goodness itself.

We both acknowledge that right and wrong/good and bad are objective truths. But you just try and brush the objectiveness of good, in a series of scientific/descriptive facts about x, when x contains no such thing.

As you conceded the good doesn't exist somewhere in the physical descriptions of any actions or things. So if it is an objective truth, it's not a physical one, it's an immaterial or non-physical one, or supernatural one.

I'm not saying something exclusive to my beliefs, but rather both of our perceptions. Your explanation of the nature of objective goodness are false. While this is the right one.

[The Grand Nudger]

As if on cue, lol.

You’ve greatly misunderstood non natural realism, Acro. It has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

Non natural realism and arbitrary supernatural subjectivism aren’t even in the same universe with each other.

[GrandizerII]

We're still doing the assigning of "right/wrong" (as a species), but we base the judgement on external acts.

Your light analogy, once again, indicates to me that you believe murder is wrong because of the Good. I can't accept that because it implies divine arbitrariness.

No I'm indicating that the reason both of us see wrong, is a result of the light, just as we see the objects in our rooms because of the light. You're making the mistake of conflating the object with the light of Goodness itself.

The light would be millions of years of evolution + natural selection, not God.

We both acknowledge that right and wrong/good and bad are objective truths. But you  just try and brush the objectiveness of good, in a series of scientific/descriptive facts about x, when x contains no such thing.

2 isn't contained in any of the physical objects, but we have mathematical model that represents the separateness of one object from another identical object as "2". Similarly, "bad" isn't concretely contained in any physical act but if the act causes severe harm to millions of people, then due mainly to evolutionary conditioning we will see it is strongly "bad" (and if we're good moral philosophers [which I'm not], articulate the reasons exactly).

[Acrobat]

As if on cue, lol.

You’ve greatly misunderstood non natural realism, Acro.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

Non natural realism and arbitrary supernatural subjectivism aren’t even in the same universe with each other.

I'm fine with substituting the word "non-natural" for supernatural, since that's probably bit more palatable for atheist. 

There's a non-natural reality, we can call the Good.

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s not an issue of palatability, nor is it open to “substitution”.

You are plain and simply wrong.

[Acrobat]

It’s not an issue of palatability, nor is it open to “substitution”.

You are plain and simply wrong.

I'm fine with a moral reality that exists, but that is not part of the natural world. 

Non-natural seems to a be good word for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Acro, lol....

Your every post, in every thread, can be reduced to and explained by a single observation.

You desperately want possession if the term realism, because it sounds better to you than the term which very accurately describes your stated moral system. It sounds better to you, because you were taught that the term which describes your moral position, and your religion..was “bad”, and the problem with Other People™.

Above, again, you show your failure to comprehend what the term realism refers to in moral theory. All moral realities“really exist”, non cog, subjectivism, relativism, realism, nihilism.

That’s not realism.

[Acrobat]

No I'm indicating that the reason both of us see wrong, is a result of the light, just as we see the objects in our rooms because of the light. You're making the mistake of conflating the object with the light of Goodness itself.

The light would be millions of years of evolution + natural selection, not God.

We both acknowledge that right and wrong/good and bad are objective truths. But you  just try and brush the objectiveness of good, in a series of scientific/descriptive facts about x, when x contains no such thing.

2 isn't contained in any of the physical objects, but we have mathematical model that represents the separateness of one object from another identical object as "2". Similarly, "bad" isn't concretely contained in any physical act but if the act causes severe harm to millions of people, then due mainly to evolutionary conditioning we will see it is strongly "bad" (and if we're good moral philosophers [which I'm not], articulate the reasons exactly).

Just give it up. I'm revoking your membership into the moral realist club. You no longer subscribe to view of good as objective, but appear to be dwindling your way into the emotivist camp. Where good and bad, are just brain states. 
I think your views would perhaps find a better home among them.