How to easily defeat any argument for God

[LadyForCamus]

Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies

Because it's bad for the babies.

Which is objectively true and knowable whether or not a god exists.

[Belacqua]

Because it's bad for the babies.

Which is objectively true and knowable whether or not a god exists.

That's right.

As I said, it requires additional arguments to get from objective good to God as the final cause of goodness.

---

It all depends on whether it is possible for the Holocaust to be morally right in accordance with the Good. If it is, then it's arbitrary. If it isn't, then it has nothing to do with the Good/God, but something about the Holocaust act itself.

The Christian view is that there is something inherently, objectively bad about the Holocaust itself. And that it does have to do with the Good/God. 
But it requires additional arguments to get from one to the other.

[LadyForCamus]

Which is objectively true and knowable whether or not a god exists.

That's right.

As I said, it requires additional arguments to get from objective good to God as the final cause of goodness.

Agreed. Now, explain that to Acrobat. He’s probably more apt to listen to you. 😛

[GrandizerII]

Which is objectively true and knowable whether or not a god exists.

That's right.

As I said, it requires additional arguments to get from objective good to God as the final cause of goodness.

---

It all depends on whether it is possible for the Holocaust to be morally right in accordance with the Good. If it is, then it's arbitrary. If it isn't, then it has nothing to do with the Good/God, but something about the Holocaust act itself.

The Christian view is that there is something inherently, objectively bad about the Holocaust itself. And that it does have to do with the Good/God. 
But it requires additional arguments to get from one to the other.

Acrobat thinks they are one and the same, though. And I don't believe in final causes. I think final cause is a grave misunderstanding of how things in the universe happen. There is no end goal towards which things move toward in how they behave. Things move forward because of what they are intrinsically and the conditions at hand.

And if we say that X is intrinsically good/bad, then why do we still need to point it to God?

I'm going to check that thread you linked me to now since I'm on the bus to work.

---

Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies

Because it's bad for the babies.

Bad in the sense that it has unnecessary, probably lasting, detriment to their flourishing and fulfilling their potential.

That's moral naturalism, sounds like it.

[Belacqua]

Acrobat thinks they are one and the same, though. 

I can't speak for him. Maybe he does. Maybe I haven't listened to him well enough yet. 

This isn't a simple argument we can deal with in a sound-bitey fashion. I think that if we want better understanding and not just Internet victory we can take it slow and be charitable with one another. We're all working on it. 

And I don't believe in final causes. I think final cause is a grave misunderstanding of how things in the universe happen. There is no end goal towards which things move toward in how they behave. Things move forward because of what they are intrinsically and the conditions at hand.

My experience is that people associate final causes with conscious intentional goals, though this isn't usually the case. Especially in nature. 

I mean, the final cause of an acorn is a mature oak tree. And that's entirely due to evolution and the intrinsic conditions of what acorns are. 

But I risk derailing the thread....

I'm going to check that thread you linked me to now since I'm on the bus to work.

The poster called Ignorant is a far better philosopher than I am. I've talked to him on another forum, and I know who he is from real life. I've gained a lot from reviewing his conversations on this forum.

---

Reason, Faith & Revolution? Yes, i credit Terry Eagleton for a lot, especially for introducing me to my favorite theologian, Herbert McCabe.

That's the one! I figured you'd know it. 

I think what many such unbelievers fail to recognize, is that most people live their religion, rather than develop an articulation of it. If my mother had to articulate a theology, it would have very little to do with the space in which her religion, faith, occupy in her life, it cuts deep within her. 

I think of this quote from Dostoevsky: "“the essence of religious feeling doesn’t fit in with any reasoning, with any crimes and trespasses, or with any atheisms; there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; there’s something in it that atheisms will eternally glance off, and they will eternally be talking not about that.”

Yes, I'm sure this is true. I'm Facebook friends with two faithful church-goers, and neither is into theology at all. But their community and moral culture is shaped through the church, and there's no way I could be against that.

They are also loving and good people -- yesterday one of them was celebrating the fact that her pastor -- a man -- had just got married to another man.

[GrandizerII]

Acrobat thinks they are one and the same, though. 

I can't speak for him. Maybe he does. Maybe I haven't listened to him well enough yet. 

This isn't a simple argument we can deal with in a sound-bitey fashion. I think that if we want better understanding and not just Internet victory we can take it slow and be charitable with one another. We're all working on it. 

He's been clear about it, and has explicitly confirmed time and time again that God and Good are one and the same.

Acrobat? When you're available, please confirm this for Belaqua, thanks.

And I don't believe in final causes. I think final cause is a grave misunderstanding of how things in the universe happen. There is no end goal towards which things move toward in how they behave. Things move forward because of what they are intrinsically and the conditions at hand.

My experience is that people associate final causes with conscious intentional goals, though this isn't usually the case. Especially in nature. 

I mean, the final cause of an acorn is a mature oak tree. And that's entirely due to evolution and the intrinsic conditions of what acorns are. 

But I risk derailing the thread....

An acorn alone does not have the potential to become a mature oak tree. An acorn can remain an acorn without ever becoming a tree or be a crushed acorn or eventually grow into a tree, and this all depends on what the surrounding conditions happen to be.

I'm going to check that thread you linked me to now since I'm on the bus to work.

The poster called Ignorant is a far better philosopher than I am. I've talked to him on another forum, and I know who he is from real life. I've gained a lot from reviewing his conversations on this forum.

I voted for him as best theist at one point. Actually I remember that thread now that I had a proper look at it. There's a Stark difference between him and the other theists who participated in that thread.

That said, Ignorant didn't really make an argument for the good being God. He said if this then God, and that's where he stopped. I mean, fair enough. But that's not the controversy here.

I'm on the phone, and have difficulty deleting quotes separately, so I shall leave the quote below untouched.

---

[quote]

Reason, Faith & Revolution? Yes, i credit Terry Eagleton for a lot, especially for introducing me to my favorite theologian, Herbert McCabe.

That's the one! I figured you'd know it. 

[quote]
I think what many such unbelievers fail to recognize, is that most people live their religion, rather than develop an articulation of it. If my mother had to articulate a theology, it would have very little to do with the space in which her religion, faith, occupy in her life, it cuts deep within her. 

I think of this quote from Dostoevsky: "“the essence of religious feeling doesn’t fit in with any reasoning, with any crimes and trespasses, or with any atheisms; there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; there’s something in it that atheisms will eternally glance off, and they will eternally be talking not about that.”

Yes, I'm sure this is true. I'm Facebook friends with two faithful church-goers, and neither is into theology at all. But their community and moral culture is shaped through the church, and there's no way I could be against that.

They are also loving and good people -- yesterday one of them was celebrating the fact that her pastor -- a man -- had just got married to another man.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's been clear about it, and has explicitly confirmed time and time again that God and Good are one and the same.

Acrobat? When you're available, please confirm this for Belaqua, thanks

He’s also stated that a god that commanded holocaust or who’s nature made holocaust good, would be wrong.

Acro is confused. Either god and good are arbitrary and synonymous, or a god is only good insomuch as it conforms to some standard apart from itself.

I’m amused by the fact of his Christian god failing either way, as a source of moral value or knowledge.

[Belacqua]

An acorn alone does not have the potential to become a mature oak tree. An acorn can remain an acorn without ever becoming a tree or be a crushed acorn or eventually grow into a tree, and this all depends on what the surrounding conditions happen to be.

That's right. But that's not an argument against final causes. The potential is there, and various things are required to get to the thing the acorn points toward.
In fact this is all a part of the Christian argument. A human being has the potential to be a great deal. The good is what supports that. The bad is what works against it.

[GrandizerII]

He's been clear about it, and has explicitly confirmed time and time again that God and Good are one and the same.

Acrobat? When you're available, please confirm this for Belaqua, thanks

He’s also stated that a god that commanded holocaust or who’s nature made holocaust good, would be wrong.

Acro is confused. Either god and good are arbitrary and synonymous, or a god is only good insomuch as it conforms to some standard apart from itself.

I’m amused by the fact of his Christian god failing either way, as a source of moral value or knowledge.

That's true as well. Then perhaps Acrobat needs to be really clear on what he is arguing. Because I can only go by what he himself claims to be arguing for. If there is some incoherency in his position, then he will have to come to grips with that.

---

An acorn alone does not have the potential to become a mature oak tree. An acorn can remain an acorn without ever becoming a tree or be a crushed acorn or eventually grow into a tree, and this all depends on what the surrounding conditions happen to be.

That's right. But that's not an argument against final causes. The potential is there, and various things are required to get to the thing the acorn points toward.
In fact this is all a part of the Christian argument. A human being has the potential to be a great deal. The good is what supports that. The bad is what works against it.

I don't agree that the acorn points towards a tree. There's no such end to which it points to. Under some circumstances, it may grow to become a tree, but not because of some potential deep inside it that is waiting to be woken up or something. The tree is not simply a grown up version of the acorn.

[Acrobat]

I indicated that Good existent external to us, like we might say of the sun, or the yellow of my wife’s dress, etc, and not as description of our biological state.

You said prove it, and now you acknowledge that good does exist in such a way.

I do not believe in the platonic Good. Good is a label, nothing more. There is no such thing as the Good beyond the abstract sense. There are acts that we can observe of which we say "good" or "bad". That is it. Abstract things come from us, those who have the capacity to bring forth abstract thoughts.

The perception.

Both of us, and perhaps anyone whose not being dishonest, is aware that their recognition of right and wrong, is not a recognition of their internal biological state, as an articulation of their likes and dislikes or personal feeling etc..Unlike  when we say a particular song is good, or a particular dish is good, etc.. where good described a quality of their feelings. 

We perceive good as external to us, not as an internal state.

I don't need to subscribe to your particular moral theory, or even be able to define good, to recognize this. Just like I don't need a definition of the sun, or even know much of anything about the sun's nature, to recognize that it exists outside of myself. My definition, nor my moral theory is the source of it's existence.

From this, the question is what is the nature of this thing, that both you and I acknowledge seeing. 

Are you trying now to suggest good is just an abstract thought, that resides solely in our mind? That seems to be a contradiction of your rejection of good as a description of our internal states.