How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

I re-read the question 'Why is it wrong to torture babies?' several times.  I parsed it out pretty carefully.  I tried substituting other words that mean approximately the same things (e.g. 'Wherefore is the evil in causing gratuitous suffering to neonates?').  I asked the question to other people as a test.

I'm not the sharpest tree in the forest, but I'm unable to find any sense in which this question is not understandable, unclear, or confusing.

But I'm pretty sure it deserves a better response than, 'I don't understand the question.'

Boru

That’s because I’ve answered the question several times in several different ways, and each answer was deemed unsatisfactory.

Here’s one response I gave previously:

“
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. “

Is that not an adequate answer?

[GrandizerII]

I re-read the question 'Why is it wrong to torture babies?' several times.  I parsed it out pretty carefully.  I tried substituting other words that mean approximately the same things (e.g. 'Wherefore is the evil in causing gratuitous suffering to neonates?').  I asked the question to other people as a test.

I'm not the sharpest tree in the forest, but I'm unable to find any sense in which this question is not understandable, unclear, or confusing.

But I'm pretty sure it deserves a better response than, 'I don't understand the question.'

Boru

That’s because I’ve answered the question several times in several different ways, and each answer was deemed unsatisfactory.

Here’s one response I gave previously:

“
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. “

Is that not an adequate answer?

I remember you stating that this is how one might answer it. Is this your answer as well then?

[LadyForCamus]

I re-read the question 'Why is it wrong to torture babies?' several times.  I parsed it out pretty carefully.  I tried substituting other words that mean approximately the same things (e.g. 'Wherefore is the evil in causing gratuitous suffering to neonates?').  I asked the question to other people as a test.

I'm not the sharpest tree in the forest, but I'm unable to find any sense in which this question is not understandable, unclear, or confusing.

But I'm pretty sure it deserves a better response than, 'I don't understand the question.'

Boru

That’s because I’ve answered the question several times in several different ways, and each answer was deemed unsatisfactory.

Here’s one response  I gave previously:

“
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. “

Is that not an adequate answer?

You said that was how “someone here might answer it”. It wasn’t your answer.

[Acrobat]

A while back I was arguing that grown up atheists (who aren't in a vegetative state) are atheists for reasons. That we have all heard religious arguments, evaluated them according to standards, and failed to be persuaded by them. 

Often the reasons for rejecting the arguments are very good ones -- e.g. "I have never seen evidence." Other times they are not-so-good reasons -- e.g. "The nuns were mean to me."

At the time someone here was telling me that's all wrong, that he and other atheists hold things to be true about the world for no reasons at all. 

It may be that Acrobat feels the same way. That we perceive good and bad without reasons. That something is just good -- not good because something. 

But I confess that both cases seem strange to me.

Epistemologically, Acrobat isn't wrong here. Sometimes we don't need to deliberate on whether something is right or wrong in order to intuit it. But that's not what's being asked of him.

If X is just good, then that's still X is good because of something about X

Let’s ask this of a subjective good, like dominos pizza is good, where dominos pizza is x. Let’s introduce a y as well which stands for my taste buds.

Is good here something about x, or good here something about y?

Perhaps you recognize in this example that good is really about y, good is description of my likes.

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

---

That’s because I’ve answered the question several times in several different ways, and each answer was deemed unsatisfactory.

Here’s one response  I gave previously:

“
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. “

Is that not an adequate answer?

You said that was how “someone here might answer it”. It wasn’t your answer.

If it was my answer, would that have been an adequate response? This is the type of response you were looking for? Am I correct?

[Belacqua]

“
Because harming innocents babies cause unnecessary suffering, is harmful for both the health and wellbeing of the child and society. “

Is that not an adequate answer?

Yep, perfectly adequate, I'd say.

Some argumentative people might demand to know why it is bad to do things that are detrimental to the child's wellbeing -- I've seen pickier questions. But I think in ethics "good" just means "conducive to wellbeing." So the statement here is enough.

In other cases we might argue about whether a given thing (higher taxes, for example) is or is not conducive to wellbeing. But in the case of torturing babies it's self-evident.

[GrandizerII]

Epistemologically, Acrobat isn't wrong here. Sometimes we don't need to deliberate on whether something is right or wrong in order to intuit it. But that's not what's being asked of him.

If X is just good, then that's still X is good because of something about X

Let’s ask this of a subjective good, like dominos pizza is good, where dominos pizza is x. Let’s introduce a y as well which stands for my taste buds.

Is good here something about x, or good here something about y?

Perhaps you recognize in this example that good is really about y, good is description of my likes.

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

Both. It's in my perception but it also depends on something about the pizza that makes me like it.

IOW:

The pizza tastes good, so I like it.

---

Epistemologically, Acrobat isn't wrong here. Sometimes we don't need to deliberate on whether something is right or wrong in order to intuit it. But that's not what's being asked of him.

If X is just good, then that's still X is good because of something about X

Let’s ask this of a subjective good, like dominos pizza is good, where dominos pizza is x. Let’s introduce a y as well which stands for my taste buds.

Is good here something about x, or good here something about y?

Perhaps you recognize in this example that good is really about y, good is description of my likes.

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

---

You said that was how “someone here might answer it”. It wasn’t your answer.

If it was my answer, would that have been an adequate response? This is the type of response you were looking for? Am I correct?

Is it your answer? Yes or no?

[Belacqua]

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

This is interesting...

In a sense, it's a perfectly subjective thing. You like thick crust, I like thin crust. 

In another way, though, the word "good" in regard to pizza may converge with the tortured-babies example. 

If we use "good" to mean "enriches life; adds to wellbeing" then having the kind of pizza you like would be a good. 

Although of course differences in taste mean that the delight the pizza gives will vary from person to person, and you having the kind of pizza I don't like doesn't harm me. Whereas the tortured baby harms both the baby and, indirectly, me too, by making society worse.

[Acrobat]

Let’s ask this of a subjective good, like dominos pizza is good, where dominos pizza is x. Let’s introduce a y as well which stands for my taste buds.

Is good here something about x, or good here something about y?

Perhaps you recognize in this example that good is really about y, good is description of my likes.

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

Both. It's in my perception but it also depends on something about the pizza that makes me like it.

IOW:

The pizza tastes good, so I like it.

---

Let’s ask this of a subjective good, like dominos pizza is good, where dominos pizza is x. Let’s introduce a y as well which stands for my taste buds.

Is good here something about x, or good here something about y?

Perhaps you recognize in this example that good is really about y, good is description of my likes.

Your not going to find the “good” in the pizza, it’s located in me, in this example of a subjective good. Do you agree?

---

If it was my answer, would that have been an adequate response? This is the type of response you were looking for? Am I correct?

Is it your answer? Yes or no?

It’s not both though. If I were to take this pizza to a lab dissect it, I’m not going to locate some property called “good” in it, the location of “good”, is in your subjective biological state, it’s in you rather than in the pizza.

[GrandizerII]

Both. It's in my perception but it also depends on something about the pizza that makes me like it.

IOW:

The pizza tastes good, so I like it.

---

Is it your answer? Yes or no?

It’s not both though. If I were to take this pizza to a lab dissect it, I’m not going to locate some property called “good” in it, the location of “good”, is in your subjective biological state, it’s in you rather than in the pizza.

The property of the pizza that makes me perceive it as tasty is of the pizza, the perception is from me as a form of response.

That's how I see it, and anyhow, nothing to do with morality.

[Acrobat]

It’s not both though. If I were to take this pizza to a lab dissect it, I’m not going to locate some property called “good” in it, the location of “good”, is in your subjective biological state, it’s in you rather than in the pizza.

The property of the pizza that makes me perceive it as tasty is of the pizza, the perception is from me as a form of response.

Good here is just another way of saying it’s tasty. We acknowledge that meaning of good here is subjective rather that objective. It’s something said about the subject rather than the object. Good expresses something about you, and not the pizza.

This shouldn’t be something that we should be disagreeing on, particularly when we both readily acknowledge that we’re talking about something subjectively good here.

You might not understand what this has to do with the objective goodness of morality just yet, but you shouldn’t be so resistant to acknowledging the nature of a subjective good.