How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

A fun non naturalist take on that question, Camus, goes like so.

I know that I shouldn’t strip a screw, but is it wrong?

GE Moore, open question.

Yeah, I was reading up on that a while ago.

No matter what you say, the argument goes that you can always ask "but is it wrong"?

Example: The Holocaust caused unnecessary suffering, but is it wrong?

Well yeah. If we define right/wrong in terms of harm and suffering, which is very reasonable, it is wrong.

Questions like this remind me of questions like the following:

Other people behave very similar to how I do, but do they really have a mind?

I can interact with the objects around, but do I really interact with them as they are?

I can think, and do all sorts of things, but am I really me?

If you're persistent, you have some agenda, you can forever ask the question "but is this really really true"?

[LadyForCamus]

It seems completely useless altogether to even talk about morality without respect to the well-being of beings, lol. Acro wants to make this distinction between the fact of what is physically good for people, and “The Good”. I mean, if we aren’t talking about what is good or not good for people, what are we even talking about? If there weren’t living things, there would be no need for moral systems at all.

[GrandizerII]

It seems completely useless altogether to even talk about morality without respect to the well-being of beings, lol. Acro wants to make this distinction between the fact of what is physically good for people, and “The Good”. I mean, if we aren’t talking about what is good or not good for people, what are we even talking about? If there weren’t living things, there would be no need for moral systems at all.

The stuff he says comes off as all ad hoc to me, as with most theistic position out there.

For me, I always try to start from the bottom up. What can I observe, what can I deduce or infer most directly from what I can observe? Is this view, as it is, sufficient to address the concerns I had before? If yes, then it's a provisional yes for now, and until someone explains to me what is wrong with the view as it is, I'll stick to it as the best explanation thus far. If no, then I continue to move upwards until I find what is required to make it sufficiently reasonably true.

Or if it's too much for me to contemplate, I can just stick to fuck this, I'll go watch a movie instead.

[The Grand Nudger]

We may be talking about morality, but Acro isn’t. He’s talking about a god.

Divine command by any name or description is divine command. Trouble is, it’s not a proper moral theory, it’s a theory of belonging and obedience, which may or may not be moral.

Do what the normatives tell you, failure to do what the normatives tell you is bad, because they told you to do what they tell you.

[Rhondazvous]

The New Atheist failed? Really? i must have blinked.

[LadyForCamus]

We may be talking about morality, but Acro isn’t.  He’s talking about a god.

Divine command by any name or description is divine command.  Trouble is, it’s not a proper moral theory, it’s a theory of belonging and obedience, which may or may not be moral.

Do what the normatives tell you, failure to do what the normatives tell you is bad, because they told you to do what they tell you.

He’s wants what he’s talking about to be both and neither at the same. Having your cake, and all that.

[The Grand Nudger]

He’d have a more compelling argument for his god-called-realist-good if he made an argument for realist good in the first place.

That there are facts of a matter that make things wrong. Not that there are facts of a deontology that makes things wrong.

A deontology can only be said to accurate reflect realist wrong insomuch as it accurately reflects the conclusion of those facts of that matter and some relevant evaluative premise.

Things aren’t made realist wrong on account of being told not to do them, realist told-not-to-do is based upon those wrongmaking facts.

We all run into this in our daily lives. Is something wrong because daddy says not to do it, or because it’s against daddy’s nature, or does daddy tell us not to do it, is it against daddy’s nature......because it is wrong.

Daddy in the living room, daddy in the sky, the question is the same.

[Belacqua]

Our words used as we use them in science, are vessels capable only of containing and converting meaning and sense, natural meaning and sense. Ethics, if it anything, is supernatural and our words will only express facts ; as a teacup will only hold a teacup full of water and if I were to pour out a gallon over it. "

Thank you for the passage from Wittgenstein. I've found and read a couple of essays on this topic this morning, and I'll try to read his Lecture on Ethics today. It's only 8 pages!

I'm beginning to understand your argument better, from this and from skimming more of this thread. 

In a way, people are agreeing with you on the main point, I think. There is clearly nothing quantifiable in the material world which can be identified as good or bad. It's not something we can see in a microscope. But people here seem to agree that there are obvious moral facts. For example, if you cut the head off a baby, it's clearly bad. And if they demand "why?" we can say "because it deprives the baby of life, liberty, and happiness." And we can respond, "but why is it bad to do that?" And eventually the argument is just "because it just is." So in a sense people are agreeing with you. It's not something material, but it's clear and true. 

From there I guess people are worried about the terms involved. A lot of people would call such immaterial but clear and true ideas "transcendental." Wittgenstein uses the term "supernatural." Of course he was careful with his words and doesn't use the word in its general popular sense. 

I was disappointed to see that at least 3 people here apparently consider the Wittgenstein quote to be "word salad." It takes a lot of arrogance to dismiss things like that. 

Anyway, this is an interesting topic and I look forward to working on it. I'll go read the lecture now.

[The Grand Nudger]

It takes a functional knowledge of the English language and nothing else, lol.

People say lots of silly things, even smart people. Your need to ascribe arrogance to this observation is one of them.

Shine that light inward, Bel, your routine is stale.

[The Valkyrie]

Zombies.

When Jesus was resurrected why didn’t anyone else mention all the zombies rising from their graves in Jerusalem?

It’s something the Romans would probably have noticed...