How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

As usual, you get moral realism completely wrong. It isn’t based on any goal, but on the facts of a matter x.

Whether or not you think you should avoid bad things or doing bad things is your own business. Regardless of what you decide, and why, and what sort of justification manifests itself.....if any......those facts of the matter x will still be facts of the matter x.

[Acrobat]

As usual, you get moral realism completely wrong.  It isn’t based on any goal, but on the facts of a matter x.

As usual, you get pizza taste realism wrong, it isn't based on taste, but on the facts of pizza.

it doesn't matter whether you personally like pizza or not. The facts about the pizza, still remain as the facts about the pizza.

I also like how you evaded, the question as to whether a moral goal like we shouldn't do things that are detrimental to well being, are objective truths? Or whether you think it's a mind dependent, subjective truth, a truth about your own personal preferences, and desires.

In my view if some one said they shouldn't do things that are right, but should do things that are wrong, they would have expressed something false, like saying the world is flat. But you disagree?

[The Grand Nudger]

Taste Realism isn’t based on taste? You think that one through Goober?

---

As far as avoiding anything....you thought that one through about as well as the thesis that taste realism isn’t based on taste. I pointed out that it doesn’t matter what your goals are with respect to moral realism. They’re your goals. They can be whatever you want. Or you can have no goals at all.

It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree with a person that decides they should do wrong. They’re not my goals, and their idea that they should do wrong doesn’t imperil moral realism in any way. I wouldn’t make doing bad a goal, but that’s just me.

[Acrobat]

Taste Realism isn’t based on taste?  You think that one through Goober?

---

As far as avoiding anything....you thought that one through about as well as the thesis that taste realism isn’t based on taste.  I pointed out that it doesn’t matter what your goals are with respect to moral realism.  They’re your goals.  They can be whatever you want.  Or you can have no goals at all.

It doesn't matter what the taste are based on, just like it doesn't matter what the moral goal is based on. Pizza Taste Realism, like Moral Realism only require that you acknowledge scientific and historical facts about x/pizza.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly. Though I’m guessing that you thought this was some sort of brilliant objection to realism.

[Acrobat]

As far as avoiding anything....you thought that one through about as well as the thesis that taste realism isn’t based on taste.  I pointed out that it doesn’t matter what your goals are with respect to moral realism.  They’re your goals.  They can be whatever you want.  Or you can have no goals at all.

It doesn’t matter whether I agree or disagree with a person that decides they should do wrong.  They’re not my goals, and their idea that they should do wrong doesn’t imperil moral realism in any way.  I wouldn’t make doing bad a goal, but that’s just me.

Of course it does. The terms good and bad in a moral sense, have no real meaning outside of some goal. Just like the goodness and badness of pizza in my example have no meaning outside of my taste. You want to foolishly hide this fact, the way I want to hide the role of taste in my Pizza Realism example. 

Harm is bad.

What does bad mean? It means harm.

Harm is Harm.

What does calling harm "bad" add?  What meaning does the word "bad" provide to "harm", when used as a qualifier. No meaning.

---

Exactly.  Though I’m guessing that you thought this was some sort of brilliant objection to realism.

Thank you for validating Pizza Taste Realism. 

Your membership card is on the way.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’ll throw you a life raft......sort of. You’re wondering about goal oriented ethics. Goal oriented ethics can be realist or subjectivist.

That some x is bad is meaningful regardless of whether or not you or anyone else clothes it in goal oriented ethics. If no one did, it would still be bad.

They’re two separate statements, one of which is an evaluative premise, lol,

X -is- bad
And
It is my goal to do bad

Therefore I should do x.

If we alter the evaluative premise to its goal based antithesis, we will end up with the conclusion that we shouldn’t do d, but nothing about x’s “badness” has changed in that exchange.

[Acrobat]

I’ll throw you a life raft......sort of.  You’re wondering about goal oriented ethics.  Goal oriented ethics can be realist or subjectivist.

That some x is bad is meaningful regardless of whether or not you or anyone else clothes it with goal oriented ethics.  If no one did, it would still be bad.

No it isn't. X is just X. X is just a series of scientific and historical facts about X, no good or bad to be found among them. Just like no good or bad is to be found among the scientific facts about the pizza.

You understand the location of good and bad, when it comes to pizza is somewhere else other than in the scientific facts about the pizza, in  states of mind, good and bad are facts about my taste, my likes and dislikes.

Just because you're talking about objective good, doesn't mean that you to get magically erase the problem of the location of good and bad, within historical and scientific facts about x. You'd have to locate it somewhere else, something to replace a state of mind, like some sort of non-natural moral reality, like a Platonic conception of Good. Here you've replaced a state of mind in subjectivist account, to an external reality outside of our minds. 

When you try and brush it under the rug of scientific and historical facts about x, you're just being sneaky, being deceptive, fooling yourself. Which you clearly understand when I tried to do the same for Pizza Taste Realism.

[The Grand Nudger]

To a realist, at least one of those facts is morally relevant. That much is true by definition. It’s what it means to be a realist.

If that’s what you have a problem with, you have a problem with realism.

Do you have a problem with realism?

---

-and whatever you think it was you were trying to do with taste realism, all you managed to do was embarrass yourself across multiple threads while arguing your way into agreeing with what I’ve repeatedly explained to you.

[Acrobat]

I’ll throw you a life raft......sort of.  You’re wondering about goal oriented ethics.  Goal oriented ethics can be realist or subjectivist.

That some x is bad is meaningful regardless of whether or not you or anyone else clothes it in goal oriented ethics.  If no one did, it would still be bad.

They’re two separate statements, one of which is an evaluative premise, lol,

X -is- bad
And
It is my goal to do bad

Therefore I should do x.

If we alter the evaluative premise to its goal based antithesis, we will end up with the conclusion that we shouldn’t do d, but nothing about x’s “badness” has changed in that exchange.

X is X, X is just a series of historical and scientific facts. 

I have a goal, perhaps the goal is to make as much money as I can, etc..

Whatever scientific and historical facts that I can utilize to achieve this goal are good, and whatever detrimental to this goal are bad. 

I have a goal, to avoid doing things that are harmful to wellbeing. 

Whatever scientific and historical facts that I can utilize to achieve this goal are good, and whatever detrimental to this goal are bad.