How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

Take it up with Moore?  Or, perhaps, do a little research.

He used the term “non natural” to refer to non empirical facts.  Like an axiom.

I don’t have a problem with non naturalism, it’s just as likely to be true or false as naturalism, lol.

Do you have a problem with the existence of a non-natural moral reality? The properties of goodness being non-natural? Which one can just as well believe in without reference to a God?

If not, then I don't know why you continue to argue with me other than because of some weird obsession with the fact that I believe in God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here’s a question, why tie your scrotum into knots attempting to align yourself with a position you reject?

Why not ask a question that directly proceeds from what you -do- believe, instead?

Ala “What, other than an existential supernatural entity, could account for moral facts?”

Take your time, do a little introspection here.

- and no, I don’t have a problem with a supernatural reality, it’s just not relevant to my morality. If a god existed, I still wouldn’t have any use for it. I find occasion to explain this to christians every now and again...,so I guess it’s your turn to hear it. The existence of your god, or any god, is completely irrelevant to me. Just as I would have no need of reference to your god for my moral propositions, if it existed....I still wouldn’t be a Christian, if it existed.

I have an insurmountable moral objection to killing the better man in order to cover my parking tickets.

[Acrobat]

Here’s a question, why tie your scrotum into knots attempting to align yourself with a position you reject?

Why not ask a question that directly proceeds from what you -do- believe, instead?

Ala “What, other than an existential supernatural entity, could account for moral facts?”

Take your time, do a little introspection here.

- and no, I don’t have a problem with a supernatural reality, it’s just not relevant to my morality.  If a god existed, I still wouldn’t have any use for it.  I find occasion to explain this to christians every now and again...,so I guess it’s your turn to hear it.  The existence of your god, or any god, is completely irrelevant to me.

I don't reject non-natural moral realism, I don't reject someone like Vulcans view. I do reject natural realism, the sort that you and other here have tried to defend, attempts to located goodness within the scientific and historical facts, engaging in the sort of problem Moore outlined in open-question argument. 

I believe in a non-natural moral reality, a transcendent moral reality. This is the belief I'm defending, and the questions proceed from such a belief. 

Just because this doesn't satisfy your desire to argue about some sky daddy, doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

The existence of your god, or any god, is completely irrelevant to me. Just as I would have no need of reference to your god for my moral propositions, if it existed....I still wouldn’t be a Christian, if it existed.

It's equally irrelevant to me to defend whatever sort of God you have in mind, existence. I'm not the one that keeps bringing up God you are. For someone who claims to not care about God, or doesn't see any usefulness in it, you seem pretty obsessed with it, lol.

I'm just a guy defending the idea of a transcendent moral reality, who just so happens to be a theist.

[GrandizerII]

In my view, what's taking place, is that we see a non-natural/immaterial Good, and it's through this that we see things like cutting a babies head off as bad, or doing things conducive to wellbeing as good.

Cutting a babies head off is bad because of what it entails, and you have evolved as a member of the human species to see it as such.

It's not a problem at all for non-theistic naturalism. The problem is that you're not satisfied with any naturalistic explanation, but this is a psychological problem on your part, not a logical one.

[The Grand Nudger]

Realism isn’t unsalvageable garbage anymore?

Honestly, this is just a repeat of the last however many pages. Where you’ll shit all over some very specific term and, in the end, after having had its accurate meaning explained to you, decide it’s trash.

Why not skip to the end, why not ask a question that proceeds from what you actually do believe, rather than one which proceeds from your confusion over terms you refuse to learn for yourself?

You think “good” and “god” are synonyms. Non natural realism directly and explicitly rejects the supernatural as an explanation for moral facts. Full stop.

---

Now, as for Moore’s open question argument, it was long ago addressed. Moore retracted his support for that argument when the nestled fallacies were described - which you would know, if you did any research for yourself on the matter.

Both synthetic and analytic naturalism can proceed in the face of that objection.

Just as naturalism can proceed in the face of humes is ought objection.

Each mans contribution to moral theory was in highlighting some issue that needed to be worked out, a gap in semantics, that all contemporary moral theories have been firmed to account for.

[Acrobat]

In my view, what's taking place, is that we see a non-natural/immaterial Good, and it's through this that we see things like cutting a babies head off as bad, or doing things conducive to wellbeing as good.

Cutting a babies head off is bad because of what it entails, and you have evolved as a member of the human species to see it as such.

It's not a problem at all for non-theistic naturalism. The problem is that you're not satisfied with any naturalistic explanation, but this is a psychological problem on your part, not a logical one.

I have evolved as a member of the human species to see. To recognize that that certain things outside of my mind are real, like the sun, the room I'm in.

I can recognize the natural facts of a babies head getting cut off, all the parts that went into the actions, the various brain states etc.. I can also recognize an objective badness, that is neither a part of my brain state, nor in any of the scientific facts surrounding this. 

We have evolved to recognize an objective non-natural/immaterial/transcedent moral reality not reducible to scientific facts, or brain states.

[The Grand Nudger]

Immaterial begs a non moral question.

Transcendence, well yeah...sure. All facts are transcendent.

( pro tip, you’re looking for your moral theory to prove too much, lol. Every issue you’ve had reduces to this.)

[GrandizerII]

Cutting a babies head off is bad because of what it entails, and you have evolved as a member of the human species to see it as such.

It's not a problem at all for non-theistic naturalism. The problem is that you're not satisfied with any naturalistic explanation, but this is a psychological problem on your part, not a logical one.

I have evolved as a member of the human species to see. To recognize that that certain things outside of my mind are real, like the sun, the room I'm in.

I can recognize the natural facts of a babies head getting cut off, all the parts that went into the actions, the various brain states etc.. I can also recognize an objective badness, that is neither a part of my brain state, nor in any of the scientific facts surrounding this. 

We have evolved to recognize an objective non-natural/immaterial/transcedent moral reality not reducible to scientific facts, or brain states.

You have made no attempt to demonstrate such a reality that you speak of. You just jump the gun by going there without first ruling out the naturalistic explanations.

The descriptor "bad" is linked to what the act itself entails, "good" is not floating out there somewhere in the divine realm.

[Acrobat]

I have evolved as a member of the human species to see. To recognize that that certain things outside of my mind are real, like the sun, the room I'm in.

I can recognize the natural facts of a babies head getting cut off, all the parts that went into the actions, the various brain states etc.. I can also recognize an objective badness, that is neither a part of my brain state, nor in any of the scientific facts surrounding this. 

We have evolved to recognize an objective non-natural/immaterial/transcedent moral reality not reducible to scientific facts, or brain states.

You have made no attempt to demonstrate such a reality that you speak of. You just jump the gun by going there without first ruling out the naturalistic explanations.

The descriptor "bad" is linked to what the act itself entails, "good" is not floating out there somewhere in the divine realm.

I've indicated that we all recognize the objective badness of x, and that this objectiviness is real and not an illusion, or something subjective. 

I've also demonstrated that this objective badness of x does not exist in any of scientific/natural facts  about x. So if the objective badness of x is true, than it badness/goodness exists as a non-natural reality/property.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ultimately, it wouldn’t matter if he could or did and in his defense he thinks that his moral position -does- go a way to demonstrating that. That’s the proving too much bit. No matter how many times he clutches his pearls when this obvious aspect of his argument is brought up.

It wouldn’t matter, because he would only be giving a justification for his moral theory. It would remain a fact that there were other equally valid and equally true moral theories which don’t require these divine props.

This demonstrates that divine props are only necessary to -his- moral theory, not morality. That they are necessary to his worldview, not the world.