How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

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.

External things can be seen as good or bad. But the assignment of good and bad comes from us, not from "out there"

External good makes no sense to me without referring to something concretely observed in nature.

[Acrobat]

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.

External things can be seen as good or bad. But the assignment of good and bad comes from us, not from "out there"

A pizza is an external thing, saying it's good and bad comes from us, it's as expression of our taste and feelings, our likes and dislikes. When i say this pizza is good, I'm telling you that it tastes pleasant to me. Good and bad here are expressions of my biological, internal state.

You agreed that this is not what you mean when referring to good and bad in a moral sense, that good and bad are not an expression of your likes and dislikes. When you say that the holocaust  (an external thing) is bad, you're not saying it's bad simply because you don't like it (which would be true for the pizza). 

Clearly you recognize the nature of good and bad in a moral sense, is distinctly different then when we use good bad when referring to subjective things like fashion, taste in music movies, etc....

" I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it." - Bertrand Russell (though it's probably a good description of the place you find yourself in now)

[GrandizerII]

External things can be seen as good or bad. But the assignment of good and bad comes from us, not from "out there"

A pizza is an external thing, saying it's good and bad comes from us, it's as expression of our taste and feelings, our likes and dislikes. When i say this pizza is good, I'm telling you that it tastes pleasant to me. Good and bad here are expressions of my biological, internal state.

You agreed that this is not what you mean when referring to good and bad in a moral sense, that good and bad are not an expression of your likes and dislikes. When you say that the holocaust  (an external thing) is bad, you're not saying it's bad simply because you don't like it (which would be true for the pizza). 

Clearly you recognize the nature of good and bad in a moral sense, is distinctly different then when we use good bad when referring to subjective things like fashion, taste in music movies, etc....

" I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it." - Bertrand Russell (though it's probably a good description of the place you find yourself in now)

Good and bad are products of our intuition built and developed through millennia of evolution (and in some cases social conditioning). We see X causes unnecessary harm and we intuit that X must therefore be bad. As a result, we dislike it because is bad.

What I don't agree with is that X is bad because there is something floating out there in space that reveals it to be bad.

[Acrobat]

Because it’s hateful.

“Hateful” makes an assumption about what the person committing the act is feeling about the act. It doesn’t tell me anything objective about the act itself, morally or otherwise. Some people have tortured babies because they’re mentally ill, or because it’s a sexual compulsion, or because they lack any kind of emotions at all. By your description above, it would only be bad to torture babies if the person torturing the baby also hated the baby, or did it because of hate.

Do you want to try again? Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies, Acro?

Let's take the statement torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, is an objective truth. The sun is shining outside my window is also an objective truth. 

Does how I come to recognize any of these objective truths, make them any less of an objective truth? If my wife came to recognize the sun is outside my window because she felt it on her back while waking up, and I did so by looking out my window, and my friend did by checking out my snap chat, does any of this change the nature of the truth itself?

[LadyForCamus]

“Hateful” makes an assumption about what the person committing the act is feeling about the act. It doesn’t tell me anything objective about the act itself, morally or otherwise. Some people have tortured babies because they’re mentally ill, or because it’s a sexual compulsion, or because they lack any kind of emotions at all. By your description above, it would only be bad to torture babies if the person torturing the baby also hated the baby, or did it because of hate.

Do you want to try again? Why is it objectively immoral to torture babies, Acro?

Let's take the statement torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, is an objective truth. The sun is shining outside my window is also an objective truth. 

Does how I come to recognize any of these objective truths, make them any less of an objective truth? 

No. Further, if the method you use to come by that truth doesn’t involve any god, then that renders god unnecessary, and unrelated to any moral truths. I’ll ask you a third time, because you seem to want to evade the question: Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies?

[Acrobat]

A pizza is an external thing, saying it's good and bad comes from us, it's as expression of our taste and feelings, our likes and dislikes. When i say this pizza is good, I'm telling you that it tastes pleasant to me. Good and bad here are expressions of my biological, internal state.

You agreed that this is not what you mean when referring to good and bad in a moral sense, that good and bad are not an expression of your likes and dislikes. When you say that the holocaust  (an external thing) is bad, you're not saying it's bad simply because you don't like it (which would be true for the pizza). 

Clearly you recognize the nature of good and bad in a moral sense, is distinctly different then when we use good bad when referring to subjective things like fashion, taste in music movies, etc....

" I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it." - Bertrand Russell (though it's probably a good description of the place you find yourself in now)

Good and bad are products of our intuition built and developed through millennia of evolution (and in some cases social conditioning). We see X causes unnecessary harm and we intuit that X must therefore be bad. As a result, we dislike it because is bad.

What I don't agree with is that X is bad because there is something floating out there in space that reveals it to be bad.

Our perception of the sun is product of our intuition, and sensory organs, etc. built and developed through millennia of evolution. Good and bad are no more a product of our evolution, then the sun is a product of our evolution, only the components involved in our perceptions here, intuitive and otherwise. 

If good and bad are not ultimately a description of our likes a dislike, a description of our internal biological state, then yes they are out there, not in here.

---

Let's take the statement torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, is an objective truth. The sun is shining outside my window is also an objective truth. 

Does how I come to recognize any of these objective truths, make them any less of an objective truth? 

No. Further, if the method you use to come by that truth doesn’t involve any god, then that renders god unnecessary, and unrelated to any moral truths. I’ll ask you a third time, because you seem to want to evade the question: Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies?

As opposed to subjectively wrong? Because wrongness is not a description of our likes and dislikes, saying it's morally bad to torture babies just for fun, isn't equivalent to saying my dinner tasted bad. I'm not describing an internal biological state, but rather something external to myself, to say it's objectively wrong, is like saying my wife's dress is yellow, as opposed to pretty.

[GrandizerII]

Acrobat, I don't believe in a Platonic good, so comparing it to the sun in your analogies is pointless because I don't accept the analogy.

Good is purely abstract, there is no physical object to which we can point to and say "That is the good".

That doesn't mean that therefore good must be based on personal tastes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another hilarious failure to answer the question.

It’s been made perfectly clear that no one in this conversation thinks that every moral statement reduces to a subjective assertion. No one needs any lessons on subjectivity or objectivity, from you.

Your wife’s dress is “objectively yellow” because of a particular wavelength of light.

What is it that makes torturing babies wrong? Is it something about torturing babies, or something about a god?

[LadyForCamus]

Good and bad are products of our intuition built and developed through millennia of evolution (and in some cases social conditioning). We see X causes unnecessary harm and we intuit that X must therefore be bad. As a result, we dislike it because is bad.

What I don't agree with is that X is bad because there is something floating out there in space that reveals it to be bad.

Our perception of the sun is product of our intuition, and sensory organs, etc. built and developed through millennia of evolution. Good and bad are no more a product of our evolution, then the sun is a product of our evolution, only the components involved in our perceptions here, intuitive and otherwise. 

If good and bad are not ultimately a description of our likes a dislike, a description of our internal biological state, then yes they are out there, not in here.

---

No. Further, if the method you use to come by that truth doesn’t involve any god, then that renders god unnecessary, and unrelated to any moral truths. I’ll ask you a third time, because you seem to want to evade the question: Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies?

As opposed to subjectively wrong? Because wrongness is not a description of our likes and dislikes, saying it's morally bad to torture babies just for fun, isn't equivalent to saying my dinner tasted bad. I'm not describing an internal biological state, but rather something external to myself, to say it's objectively wrong, is like saying my wife's dress is yellow, as opposed to pretty.

Lol, you wanna take a fourth stab at it, Acro? You look exponentially more foolish every time you evade the question. I mean, really. This should be easy. Babies, ffs. Here we go. #4’s a charm:

Why is it objectively wrong to torture babes?

*popcorn*

[The Valkyrie]

Let's take the statement torturing innocent babies just for fun is wrong, is an objective truth. The sun is shining outside my window is also an objective truth. 

Does how I come to recognize any of these objective truths, make them any less of an objective truth? 

No. Further, if the method you use to come by that truth doesn’t involve any god, then that renders god unnecessary, and unrelated to any moral truths. I’ll ask you a third time, because you seem to want to evade the question: Why is it objectively wrong to torture babies?

Wait! What?

Why don’t people tell me these things??