How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

You have made no attempt to demonstrate such a reality that you speak of. You just jump the gun by going there without first ruling out the naturalistic explanations.

The descriptor "bad" is linked to what the act itself entails, "good" is not floating out there somewhere in the divine realm.

I've indicated that we all recognize the objective badness of x, and that this objectiviness is real and not an illusion, or something subjective. 

I've also demonstrated that this objective badness of x does not exist in any of scientific/natural facts  about x. So if the objective badness of x is true, than it exists as a non-natural reality/property.

You have made no such demonstration. Repeatedly asserting is not demonstrating, neither is arguing by false analogy.

"good/bad" exists in the same way that "green" exists in a green leaf. There's no floaty weird spooky stuff going on by which you then recognize something is good or bad, lol.

---

Ultimately, it wouldn’t matter if he could or did and in his defense he thinks that his moral position -does- go a way to demonstrating that. That’s the proving too much bit.  No matter how many times he clutches his pearls when this obvious aspect of his argument is brought up.

It wouldn’t matter, because he would only be giving a justification for his moral theory.  It would remain a fact that there were other equally valid and equally true moral theories which don’t require these divine props.

This demonstrates that divine props are only necessary to -his- moral theory, not morality.  That they are necessary to his worldview, not the world.

Even in accordance with his worldview he has yet to demonstrate it. He has done a good job of assuming though.

[Acrobat]

I've indicated that we all recognize the objective badness of x, and that this objectiviness is real and not an illusion, or something subjective. 

I've also demonstrated that this objective badness of x does not exist in any of scientific/natural facts  about x. So if the objective badness of x is true, than it exists as a non-natural reality/property.

You have made no such demonstration. Repeatedly asserting is not demonstrating, neither is arguing by false analogy.

"good/bad" exists in the same way that "green" exists in a green leaf. There's no floaty weird spooky stuff going on by which you then recognize something is good or bad, lol.

Objectively good or bad, not just good or bad. 

Don't leave the objectiveness of good and bad out. 

I indicated that this objectiveness doesn't not exist in the scientific facts about x. I'm not going to pull out any objective property we can call good or bad from x. A point you seem to have conceded. 

Good and bad are also not properties of my mind either, like my likes and dislikes, a point you conceded by acknowledge that good and bad are objective. 

If Good and Bad are objective, given the two things indicated its not reducible to any scientific fact about x, or to our state of mind. Their objective existence is in something non-natural, a non-natural reality/property.

If you think otherwise, have another go at it. When I perceive the objectiveness goodness of badness of x, what is it that I am perceiving? Some scientific property of X? My brain state (if so than it wouldn't be objective)? If you want to tell me I'm not perceiving a non-natural reality when I see good or bad, then what is that I am perceiving?

[GrandizerII]

You have made no such demonstration. Repeatedly asserting is not demonstrating, neither is arguing by false analogy.

"good/bad" exists in the same way that "green" exists in a green leaf. There's no floaty weird spooky stuff going on by which you then recognize something is good or bad, lol.

Objectively good or bad, not just good or bad. 

Don't leave the objectiveness of good and bad out. 

I indicated that this objectiveness doesn't not exist in the scientific facts about x. I'm not going to pull out any objective property we can call good or bad from x. A point you seem to have conceded. 

Good and bad are also not properties of my mind either, like my likes and dislikes, a point you conceded by acknowledge that good and bad are objective. 

If Good and Bad are objective, given the two things indicated its not reducible to any scientific fact about x, or to our state of mind. Their objective existence is in something non-natural, a non-natural reality/property.

Objectiveness is a redundant word if it is being implied, in context, that "good" or "bad" is objective.

You indicated, you said so, you asserted, you did not demonstrate. And I did not concede that "good/bad" aren't linked to the act, only that "good/bad" do not exist concretely on the act (as in there's no specific location as it's just a descriptor).

Try again.

[Acrobat]

Objectiveness is a redundant word if it is being implied, in context, that "good" or "bad" is objective.

No it isn't, particularly when some people view good and bad as subjective, and good and bad in non-moral context is often subjective, like pizza taste.

And in particular this discussion, is about the "objective" nature of goodness.

You indicated, you said so, you asserted, you did not demonstrate. And I did not concede that "good/bad" aren't linked to the act, only that "good/bad" do not exist concretely on the act (as in there's no specific location as it's just a descriptor).

Try again.

You conceded that good and bad are not located within any scientific fact, in fact you said they're not located anywhere (at least within the natural world).

Yet you still view good and bad as objective. If they're objectiveness is not located anywhere in the natural facts of reality, then where else would they be located, expect in something non-natural?

You can use whatever mental gymnastics you want to get around this, but it doesn't get around the fact that I laid my case rather clearly, and used your own beliefs to validate it.

[GrandizerII]

Objectiveness is a redundant word if it is being implied, in context, that "good" or "bad" is objective.

No it isn't, particularly when some people view good and bad as subjective, and good and bad in non-moral context is often subjective, like pizza taste.

And in particular this discussion, is about the "objective" nature of goodness.

You indicated, you said so, you asserted, you did not demonstrate. And I did not concede that "good/bad" aren't linked to the act, only that "good/bad" do not exist concretely on the act (as in there's no specific location as it's just a descriptor).

Try again.

You conceded that good and bad are not located within any scientific fact, in fact you said they're not located anywhere (at least within the natural world).

Yet you still view good and bad as objective. If they're objectiveness is not located anywhere in the natural facts of reality, then where else would they be located, expect in something non-natural?

They're descriptors. They exist as part of the natural world as descriptors, not as objects with specific physical locations. But if you really, really want me to give the "location" of "good/bad", it's in the act itself.

So where is the part where you showed that "good" exists apart from the natural?

[Acrobat]

They're descriptors. They exist as part of the natural world as descriptors, not as objects with specific physical locations. But if you really, really want me to give the "location" of "good/bad", it's in the act itself.

de·scrip·tor

LINGUISTICS
a word or expression used to describe or identify something.

Is good identifying something objective or subjective?

Before you answer, think of my pizza example, Good there is a descriptor of something subjective, my personal taste. Don't make the mistake of my Pizza Taste realist, and try and say it's descriptor of the scientific facts about the pizza.

So where is the part where you showed that "good" exists apart from the natural?

By process of elimination. If objective goodness exists, and as I've shown it can't be reduced to any scientific/natural fact about x, then it's existence is non-natural.

[GrandizerII]

They're descriptors. They exist as part of the natural world as descriptors, not as objects with specific physical locations. But if you really, really want me to give the "location" of "good/bad", it's in the act itself.

de·scrip·tor

LINGUISTICS
a word or expression used to describe or identify something.

Is good identifying something objective or subjective?

Before you answer, think of my pizza example, Good there is a descriptor of something subjective, my personal taste. Don't make the mistake of my Pizza Taste realist, and try and say it's descriptor of the scientific facts about the pizza.

So where is the part where you showed that "good" exists apart from the natural?

By process of elimination. If objective goodness exists, and as I've shown it can't be reduced to any scientific/natural fact about x, then it's existence is non-natural.

Instead of hitting the Reply button straight away, can you please take the time to demonstrate how you eliminated naturalistic explanations for morality? All I keep seeing is you saying "X is not in Y, therefore X is in not Y", but you've not shown how "X is not in Y".

@Belaqua, maybe you can jump in here (when you can) and explain on his behalf?

[Acrobat]

de·scrip·tor

LINGUISTICS
a word or expression used to describe or identify something.

Is good identifying something objective or subjective?

Before you answer, think of my pizza example, Good there is a descriptor of something subjective, my personal taste. Don't make the mistake of my Pizza Taste realist, and try and say it's descriptor of the scientific facts about the pizza.


By process of elimination. If objective goodness exists, and as I've shown it can't be reduced to any scientific/natural fact about x, then it's existence is non-natural.

Instead of hitting the Reply button straight away, can you please take the time to demonstrate how you eliminated naturalistic explanations for morality? All I keep seeing is you saying "X is not in Y, therefore X is in not Y", but you've not shown how "X is not in Y".

@Belaqua, maybe you can jump in here (when you can) and explain on his behalf?

I've eliminated all the naturalistic explanations for objective goodness, that have been offered here, (objective being a keyword). By demonstrating that every attempt to locate objective goodness within scientific/natural facts of x, are false. That there is no property we can call objective goodness that can be located in any scientific/natural fact.

You agree right? That there is no scientific or natural property of Goodness  that can be located with any scientific/natural facts about x?

If Objective Goodness and Badness do exist, but they're not located in any scientific/natural fact about x. Where else could they be located expect in something non-natural?

I've set myself on a simple task, I've accomplished that task, and now I'm on the way to the Templeton Foundation to get my million dollar grant. -Paid for by my sponsor Domino's Pizza.

[GrandizerII]

Instead of hitting the Reply button straight away, can you please take the time to demonstrate how you eliminated naturalistic explanations for morality? All I keep seeing is you saying "X is not in Y, therefore X is in not Y", but you've not shown how "X is not in Y".

@Belaqua, maybe you can jump in here (when you can) and explain on his behalf?

I've eliminated all the naturalistic explanations for objective goodness, that have been offered here, (objective being a keyword). By demonstrating that every attempt to locate objective goodness within scientific/natural facts of x, are false. That there is no property we can call objective goodness that can be located in any scientific/natural fact.

You agree right? That there is no scientific or natural property of Goodness  that can be located with any scientific/natural facts about x?

If Objective Goodness and Badness do exist, but they're not located in any scientific/natural fact about x. Where else could they be located expect in something non-natural?

And he hit the reply button already ... sigh ...

This sounds like something a philosophical version of Trump would say "I have eliminated all naturalistic explanations here, believe me"

By the way, your argument to be successful should not rely on my agreement with any of your premises (on in this case, your twisting my words into appearing to agree with you). The argument should be able to stand on its own and have sound, well-demonstrated premises.

But of course, rather than make that attempt, you'll just respond promptly to this post and not say much of anything.

[Acrobat]

I've eliminated all the naturalistic explanations for objective goodness, that have been offered here, (objective being a keyword). By demonstrating that every attempt to locate objective goodness within scientific/natural facts of x, are false. That there is no property we can call objective goodness that can be located in any scientific/natural fact.

You agree right? That there is no scientific or natural property of Goodness  that can be located with any scientific/natural facts about x?

If Objective Goodness and Badness do exist, but they're not located in any scientific/natural fact about x. Where else could they be located expect in something non-natural?

And he hit the reply button already ... sigh ...

This sounds like something a philosophical version of Trump would say "I have eliminated all naturalistic explanations here, believe me"

By the way, your argument to be successful should not rely on my agreement with any of your premises (on in this case, your twisting my words into appearing to agree with you). The argument should be able to stand on its own and have sound, well-demonstrated premises.

But of course, rather than make that attempt, you'll just respond promptly to this post and not say much of anything.

My argument relies on people who agree that goodness and badness are objective truths, and it's not reserved for those who reject this. It's reserved for those who accept that statements like the Holocaust is bad, is objectively true, like 1+1 = 2, or the earth is round. 

It's reserved for those who share the recognition, who see the objective badness and goodness of things, as I do.