How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, lost.

Demonstrating (or suggesting) that a realists reasons were false is error theory, but it won’t make them any less realist.

Meanwhile, Acro, you have failed to identify so much as a single realists reason, yourself.

[GrandizerII]

Here's how I see it (yeah, still awake because sleeping disorder kicking in once again):

Evolution + natural selection ... + social conditioning ... + personal learning and experiences => the ability and the intuition to apprehend X as right/wrong

Something about X (X causes harm, X promotes flourishing, X fosters altruism) => stimulus signals received via sensory apparatus and sent as nervous impulses to the brain

Brain => biological computer-like organ processing the received signals and readying output responses and/or perceptions, based on inbuilt algorithms and heuristics, with differing mechanisms for differing signals

Perception about X => intuition or determination that X is right/wrong (this happens subconsciously, not consciously), sometimes associated with/followed by relatively strong emotional feelings (depending on the X and the brain's wirings)

Philosophical/intellectual motivations => consciously determining/speculating what really are the specific mechanisms involved and what standard(s)/philosophy(ies) were used

God? => No need for that

[Acrobat]

Or maybe he is thinking them through honestly, and he’s just honestly dense.

---

Both of us recognizes that the holocaust is objectively wrong.

We lay out all the scientific and historical facts associated with it.

What we're not going find to laying among them, issome ethical truth, or an "objective badness" somewhere among the rubble. 

If objective badness and goodness, does exist, which you I acknowledge it does, it's not contained in this,.

What’s this “we” business?  I’m a realist.  Realists do find ethical truth in these facts.  

That’s what realism means.

Natural realist like yourself, believe there is an ethical truth laying among the historical and scientific facts about the holocaust. But there isn't. Their emperor has no cloths. 

If you disagree, tell me what scientific or historical fact about the holocaust is an objective ethical truth?

[The Grand Nudger]

Non natural realists do too, numbskull.

Realism is very literally the idea that good and bad can be determined by reference to facts of a matter.

If you want to contend that there is no ethical truth in those facts of the matter of the holocaust, then fine.

You’re only insisting that realism is false. That it’s not an accurate description of the nature of morality.

[Acrobat]

Here's how I see it (yeah, still awake because sleeping disorder kicking in once again):

Evolution + natural selection ... + social conditioning ... + personal learning and experiences => the ability and the intuition to apprehend X as right/wrong

Something about X (X causes harm, X promotes flourishing, X fosters altruism) => stimulus signals received via sensory apparatus and sent as nervous impulses to the brain

Brain => biological computer-like organ processing the received signals and readying output responses and/or perceptions, based on inbuilt algorithms and heuristics, with differing mechanisms for differing signals

Perception about X => intuition or determination that X is right/wrong (this happens subconsciously, not consciously), sometimes associated with/followed by relatively strong emotional feelings (depending on the X and the brain's wirings)

Philosophical/intellectual motivations => consciously determining/speculating what really are the specific mechanisms involved and what standard(s)/philosophy(ies) were used

I think your problem is that you conflate the how a metal detectors detects metal, with the metal itself. How the brain detects what's good, with good itself. I'm also not asking about the nature of the metal detectors, but the nature of the metal being detected.

If you think the brain detects and creates a subjective good, that's one thing. But we're talking about a objective good, which exists outside of our brain. I believe there is a non-natural objective good that exists outside of our brain, and our brains have the ability to perceive/detect it.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Acrobat!

Could you, perhaps, expand more on your 'Not natural objective good'?

I'm really having trouble understanding you there.

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

- and your problem is that you don’t know what realism means, Acro.....

...........so how are you qualified to opine on what others problems are in reference to realism?

What is your issue with saying what you believe? Honestly? Why call it something else? You believe that there is a supernatural subjective Good out there, and anyone in contradiction to it, or doesn’t accept its moral authority, is “wrong”.

To use your own words, loosely, against Jesus, in rebellion, in need of redemption.

The only “objectivity” in your moral system is that by reference to the standard of your beliefs, others are opposed or think that you’re full of shit, lol.

[Acrobat]

Non natural realists do too, numbskull.

Realism is very literally the idea that good and bad can be determined by reference to facts of a matter.

If you want to contend that there is no ethical truth in those facts of the matter of the holocaust, then fine.

You’re only insisting that realism is false.  That it’s not an accurate description of the nature of morality.

Non natural realist, believe that moral properties exist, but that these properties are not reducible to natural facts. 


Scientific and historical facts are all natural facts, so objective goodness doesn't lay somewhere among these natural facts, in the non-naturalist view.

---

- and your problem is that you don’t know what realism means, Acro.....

...........so how are you qualified to opine on what others problems are in reference to realism?

What is your issue with saying what you believe?  Honestly?  Why call it something else? You believe that there is a supernatural subjective Good out there, and anyone in contradiction to it, or doesn’t accept its moral authority, is “wrong”.

To use your own words, loosely, against Jesus, in rebellion, in need of redemption.

The only “objectivity” in your moral system is that by reference to the standard of your beliefs, others are opposed or think that you’re full of shit, lol.

I did indicate what i believe, that I believe in a non-natural reality, akin to Plato's Form of the Good. And this is the belief I'm defending, primarily against atheists who subscribe to a natural moral realism,

[The Grand Nudger]

Non naturalists refer to natural facts of the matter as identifiers of non natural moral content.

To them, good and bad are ideas. Harm isn’t bad itself, because harm isn’t that idea, but harm -is bad- because it fits, conforms, partakes of, or is correlated with the idea they have in mind. The thing they’re talking about.

Rinse and repeat with other facts of the matter, which is where realists look to make their designations, by definition.

[LadyForCamus]

Non natural realists do too, numbskull.

Realism is very literally the idea that good and bad can be determined by reference to facts of a matter.

If you want to contend that there is no ethical truth in those facts of the matter of the holocaust, then fine.

You’re only insisting that realism is false.  That it’s not an accurate description of the nature of morality.

Non natural realist, believe that moral properties exist, but that these properties are not reducible to natural facts. 


Scientific and historical facts are all natural facts, so objective goodness doesn't lay somewhere among these natural facts, in the non-naturalist view.

---

- and your problem is that you don’t know what realism means, Acro.....

...........so how are you qualified to opine on what others problems are in reference to realism?

What is your issue with saying what you believe?  Honestly?  Why call it something else? You believe that there is a supernatural subjective Good out there, and anyone in contradiction to it, or doesn’t accept its moral authority, is “wrong”.

To use your own words, loosely, against Jesus, in rebellion, in need of redemption.

The only “objectivity” in your moral system is that by reference to the standard of your beliefs, others are opposed or think that you’re full of shit, lol.

I did indicate what i believe, that I believe in a non-natural reality, akin to Plato's Form of the Good. And this is the belief I'm defending, primarily against atheists who subscribe to a natural moral realism,

Acro, if you cut off my head, is it a fact that that is bad for me?