God exists because objective morality exists!

[NoName]

Ok , now you are just straw-manning it. Yes it is an assumption(Premise) that is what a deductive argument is. Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.

This is an obvious example of someone who doesn't understand the argument he's presenting. This is the problem with having no actual knowledge and relying on the internet/youtube to have your say for you. When someone questions you, you end up showing your true level (as in above, where you went into full circular logic). You might type all the transcripts you wish from youtube, but when someone presses, you will always embarrass yourself. It's particularly hilarious because the argument you're trying to present is very well-known (not to mention basic).

 

[simulacrum]

Ok , now you are just straw-manning it. Yes it is an assumption(Premise) that is what a deductive argument is. Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.

If you believe that Objective Morality exist independent of God then you have to present a defend able premise for that. And Atheism has no defend able reference point for objective morality.


Please read this to understand the point of the argument.

The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? Arguments that met these standards could have value in making belief in God reasonable for some people, or even giving some people knowledge of God's existence, even if it turns out that some of the premises of the arguments can be reasonably denied by other people, and thus that the arguments fail as proofs.''


''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible
arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

Now you are just flipping the script... You are the one making the tautological argument that objective morality and God are inexorably linked together... Show me the money then? How are they linked together? You are making a logical gap and you want me to clean it up? Theists kill me wallahi

 

[Dhabaal]

You could really use an outside look which I doubt you've even tried. I mean really ponder the possibility of being wrong even tho its sacrilege. I'll wait. Also sugar coat totalitarianism all you want. It took a lot of chutzpah to question everything I believed to get to where I am today

We all have our biases and prefrences (including yourself). But that doesn't stop us from searching for truth and knowledge.

“Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” (Bukhari)

And as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it (signs of Allah) adds uncleanness to their uncleanness (disease of doubt) and they die while they are unbelievers.

Look at you pulling up a fabricated verse. That is not a quranic verse.

This the correct one:
And [remember] when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease said, " Allah and His Messenger did not promise us except delusion,"
https://quran.com/search?q=disease+heart


As you see the Quran mentions nothing about having doubts being a disease. In fact having doubts is an aspect of faith

Having doubts in Allah Almighty is natural and one should avoid being too concerned about them. In fact, doubts and evil thoughts are a sign of one’s faith.

http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8377

I can see how islam is a skeptic friendly religion

It is a skeptic friendly religion, God even invites people to criticize and question the religion and make peace with those whom disagree.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most sure hand-hold, that never breaks. And God is Hearing, Knowing. [2:256]

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

Please also see the clear example set out in 4:88-91, in which the believers are told to offer peace with those who became hypocrites/apostates (i.e. were Muslim in name only but did not follow through with action during hostilities/fighting in this case) if they also offer peace.

Evolutionary theory will be your biggest undoing. It's already claiming a majority of your youth

Doesn't seem plausible. Evolution only explains method as a process of creation, so evolution doesn't disprove anything. The Quran supports the idea that humanity was created through a successive process that involves perfecting and not an instant creation.

 

[Dhabaal]

This is an obvious example of someone who doesn't understand the argument he's presenting. This is the problem with having no actual knowledge and relying on the internet/youtube to have your say for you. When someone questions you, you end up showing your true level (as in above, where you went into full circular logic). You might type all the transcripts you wish from youtube, but when someone presses, you will always embarrass yourself. It's particularly hilarious because the argument you're trying to present is very well-known (not to mention basic).

You never never explain why the things you state are as they are. Explain how i dont understand the argument. Simple saying i don't, doesn't make it true. No more so then me stating that you are a half a brain idiot, who picks thing from wikipedia, who relies on children play books and has no understanding of science and philosophy. You debate in circular logic . and discusses basic things.

Why is it true? Because i just said so.

I understand your tactic and what you are trying to do.. You come in blindly and then starts equating all sorts of random unrelated nonsense to me in an attempt to dismay the readers. You should ditch relying on personal incredulity , it just shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

The youtube video is there to give people visualization of the argument. Most of my knowledge comes from peer-reviewed journals, books and philosophy discourse websites which i use for quick sourcing and referencing.

I rely on academic links scholarly sources supporting my case throughout the whole thread. You can can consult them if you like

 

[McLovin]

We all have our biases and prefrences (including yourself). But that doesn't stop us from searching for truth and knowledge.

“Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.”

Poor lad. You think you are seeking truth but stuck in the limited constraints of your religion. What if paradise does not exist. Have you ever entertained such a thought? Doubt it

As you see the Quran mentions nothing about having doubts being a disease. In fact having doubts is an aspect of faith

Found a better one :siilaanyolaugh:
(49:15) Indeed the ones possessed of true faith are those who believed in Allah and His Messenger and then they did not entertain any doubt and strove hard in the Way of Allah with their lives and their possessions. These are the truthful ones.

Doesn't seem plausible. Evolution only explains method as a process of creation, so evolution doesn't disprove anything. The Quran supports the idea that humanity was created through a successive process that involves perfecting and not an instant creation.

So you reject the myth of Adam and Eve? Interesting

 

[Dhabaal]

If want to understand the premise of my argument. Instead of arguing with me for the sake of an argument.

Consult the explanatory source:
The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? Arguments that met these standards could have value in making belief in God reasonable for some people, or even giving some people knowledge of God's existence, even if it turns out that some of the premises of the arguments can be reasonably denied by other people, and thus that the arguments fail as proofs.''


''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible
arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

 

[Dhabaal]

Anyways i have to go to bed now, i have a lecture tomorrow.

I cannot be up all day going back and forward with ignorant and intellectually dishonest people.
Waa Indho adag!!

Its like debating basketball with someone who doesn't even know the rules of the game.

 

[NoName]

Dhambaal explain this paragraph then:

Ok , now you are just straw-manning it. Yes it is an assumption(Premise) that is what a deductive argument is. Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.

You said truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true. If this isn't circular logic, I don't know what is.

Further it should have been obvious to you after I've quoted it if you knew anything about logic. But clearly you don't, hence this.

 

[Dhabaal]

Dhambaal explain this paragraph then: You said truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises are true. If this isn't circular logic, I don't know what is.

Further it should have been obvious to you after I've quoted it if you knew anything about logic. But clearly you don't, hence this.

It's not a circular logic , it is a ''deductive logic''.. You Illiterate dumbass The moral argument is a deductive argument

Deductive and Inductive Arguments
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.

Example:
.

Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying an umbrella

Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.

Stop pretending you know what you are talking about , you dishonest fucktard, .Go pick up a damn philosophy book and inform yourself!!!!!

 

[NoName]

It's not a circular logic , it is a ''deductive logic''.. You Illiterate dumb-ass The moral argument is a deductive argument

You're just dumb. The issue is not the moral argument itself. I'm pretty sure I said it's a famous argument. However, the issue is your understanding of it. When you were questioned you ended up using circular logic: "Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true." You're basically justifying your premise by saying the conclusion implies it. That's dumb circular logic.

 

[NoName]

Its like debating basketball with someone who doesn't even know the rules of the game.

Using the basketball analogy, debating you is like debating someone who ignores the rules of the game when they go against him. And unlike you, I can back up this claim. You labelled Russell's teapot an argument from ignorance, agnostic atheism a cop-out, the well accepted definition of atheism as the absence of belief in God as an intellectual dishonesty. To top it all off when you realised that you're in circles and it has been pointed out to you that intellectual dishonesty shouldn't prevent you from refuting the position if it's indeed philosophically faulty, you ran from that thread, went on Youtube and came with this to start a new thread. And now it turns out you didn't understand the Youtube video.

 

[Dhabaal]

You're just dumb. The issue is not the moral argument itself. I'm pretty sure I said it's a famous argument. However, the issue is your understanding of it. When you were questioned you ended up using circular logic: "Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true." You're basically justifying your premise by saying the conclusion implies it. That's dumb circular logic.

What don't you understand about something being ''Deductive"? A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

What part about deductive logic do you not understand? Do you even know what a deductive argument is?

 

[Dhabaal]

WHAT A IN-COMPREHENSIVE RETARD!!! .

You have no ability to comprehend anything you just ramble on and on and on about senseless bulshitt and act likes he knows something, when he clearly doesn't.

Waa yab iyo madax xanuun. Fucking Troll.

Alright that's it i am out, its way past my bed time and i got stuff to do tomorrow.

 

[NoName]

What don't you understand about something being ''Deductive"?

Are you going to ignore that you said this and hide behind the definition of deductive argument, whose violation of it I'm pointing out? It seems you have no capacity for irony. Again, I repeat, you said this: "Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true." You were basically saying your conclusion implies your premise when someone questioned your premise! That's laughably circular!

 

[McLovin]

Back to the drawing board @Geeljire this was one of your weakest arguments to date. Although you did make progress in not throwing as much fallacies around which you didn't fully understand



Goof of the day

I never stated all atheists are nihilistic. But if they reject the existence of moral objectivity they become morally nihilistic.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Sam Harris is confused .

Many Philosophers & Scientists have reject what he asserts (Look it up). He ignores the Fact-Value distinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

He calls Moral values for facts. When in actuality Scientific facts can only describe how the natural world is, they do not tell you how the world ''ought to be be '' and Moral truths carries ''oughtness''

For example, In this piece, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/197301–.htm Peter Singer distinguishes between “neutralists” and “descriptivists.” Neutralists say that any principle can count as moral if it purports to be overriding (not that we have to all agree that it’s morally good in order for it to count as a moral principle).

Descriptivists, on the other hand, place restraints on what counts as a moral principle (is logically tied to suffering and happiness).

On this scale, Harris is a descriptivist, and as such, must reduce all moral disagreement to a semantic disagreement over what morality actually means, which is an incredibly impoverished way of understanding the diversity of values in the world today, if you ask me.

Intellectuals agree on that Moral truths and Scientific facts are distinct from one another. Therefore Science cannot explain Moral questions.

Sorry for the late reply, I was caught up in a lot of things. If I don't reply, assume that I'm busy. I may reply or I may not.

Again you purposely missed the key aspect of the argument here. Morality addresses the well being of humans and it bases what is right or wrong on that observation. For example, if I were to ask you why murder is wrong, you would be able to provide me with falsifiable claims. Murder is wrong because it harms the well being of the victim. This statement can be quantified by science in that it verify whether or not that statement is actually true.

Also, you must understand that the fact/value distinction can be argued, as I have, that it isn't always so distinct. I provided an example above. Morality makes claims about the well being of individuals and science can quantify the truth of such claim. There is a reason, as Sam Harris suggested, that we don't extent our moral principles to a rock. There is a reason why we are horrified by the torture of animals, it's because they suffer. Are you telling me that science cannot verify that claim?

I have provided a concise and clear reasoning that fact and values don't always have to be in disagreement and if you continue to disagree, I would like you to do the same.

About the point you made on God's nature, it's nothing beyond theological prattle. You have made a claim and provided only special pleading to back it up. You must provide some sort of reasoning as to why the nature of God is good instead of just claiming it is good. There is literally no philosophical grounding for that claim. I can claim that God's nature is evil just as you have claimed it is good.

 

[The_Cosmos]

We all have our biases and prefrences (including yourself). But that doesn't stop us from searching for truth and knowledge.

“Whoever follows a path in the pursuit of knowledge, Allah will make a path to Paradise easy for him.” (Bukhari)




Look at you pulling up a fabricated verse. That is not a quranic verse.

This the correct one:
And [remember] when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is disease said, " Allah and His Messenger did not promise us except delusion,"
https://quran.com/search?q=disease+heart


As you see the Quran mentions nothing about having doubts being a disease. In fact having doubts is an aspect of faith


http://islamqa.org/hanafi/daruliftaa/8377



It is a skeptic friendly religion, God even invites people to criticize and question the religion and make peace with those whom disagree.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most sure hand-hold, that never breaks. And God is Hearing, Knowing. [2:256]

A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back. [3:72]

Please also see the clear example set out in 4:88-91, in which the believers are told to offer peace with those who became hypocrites/apostates (i.e. were Muslim in name only but did not follow through with action during hostilities/fighting in this case) if they also offer peace.




Doesn't seem plausible. Evolution only explains method as a process of creation, so evolution doesn't disprove anything. The Quran supports the idea that humanity was created through a successive process that involves perfecting and not an instant creation.

Doesn't seem plausible. Evolution only explains method as a process of creation, so evolution doesn't disprove anything. The Quran supports the idea that humanity was created through a successive process that involves perfecting and not an instant creation.

Not true, Islam makes it clear that Adam was the first man and Eve was created from his left rib. In fact, if you check the source IslamQA (you used this yourself), they make it abundantly clear that Islam and evolution are at complete contradiction. Also, the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars agree that evolution is in contradiction with Islamic creationism.

I don't know what sort of Muslim you are (forgetting your short spell in which you masqueraded as an agnostic) but the religion in general is in complete contradiction with science.

 

[Jujuman]

"Agnostic Muslim"
This is enough evidence to realise the guy you've been exchanging with for the past seven pages is a spaz.

 

[Dhabaal]

Not true, Islam makes it clear that Adam was the first man and Eve was created from his left rib. In fact, if you check the source IslamQA (you used this yourself), they make it abundantly clear that Islam and evolution are at complete contradiction. Also, the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars agree that evolution is in contradiction with Islamic creationism

.

This is a myth from other religions. Quran 4:1 mentions nothing of a Rib. Most of the ideas that contradict evolution among Muslims are from the myths of other religions which were imported to Islam and attributed falsely to the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Adam (humans) were preferred or chosen over other people of his time as Allah stated clearly in Quran 3:33-34, just like Allah chose any prophet after him also Quran stated in these verses that all were "offspring". That means that humans were also offspring to a previous generations.

Islam is fully compatible with science.

I don't know what sort of Muslim you are (forgetting your short spell in which you masqueraded as an agnostic) but the religion in general is in complete contradiction with science.

I was parodying you guys. Saying i was an Agnostic Theist.

I don't know if God exists, but i lack the belief in the nonexistence of God. I endorse theism, but don't deny atheism

 

[The_Cosmos]

Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

Since humans have an intuitive sense of what is good or bad. Objective moral values exist
Stated in the qoute:
''But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals..''

Therefore it logically follows an argument for the existence of God.

Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

You have accused us in lacking of philosophy but you refuse to differentiate between theology and philosophy.

As the screenshot clearly illustrates, discussion of the nature of God is a theological matter and not the matter of philosophy which discusses:

is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Please, learn the distinction.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

I have already established a strong case for the evolutionary origins of morality but I've also discussed the fact/value distinction and how the distinction doesn't always apply. Moral values makes claims and those claims can be empirically verified.