Of course, their existence was never in question. I was just using radios and lightning to illustrate the difference between the categories of ontology, epistemology and semantics. Sometimes it's easier for people to understand that a line of epistemological questions don't really address ontology, and neither do semantic questions.

For example, you didn't realize that natural selection's role in human beings being morally aware falls under the epistemology category.

All the collective atheist brainpower couldn't, for the last 3 years, contest either premise of the moral argument.

1. If God does not exist then OMV's do not exist.

2. OMV's exist.

Instead of debating #1, they will say, you suck. You are a bully. You can't prove God exists. You are a knuckle-dragger. You are this. You are that.

Lucifer is a liberal and the father of lies. Liberalism is an intricate web of rationalization based on lies.

I've thrown down two gauntlets in recent philosophical discussions regarding these topics:

<Moral Argument>
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV exist.
3. Therefore God exists.

No one will attempt to refute either premise. This is now official.

<theism vs atheism>

Topic:

There are good reasons to think that theism is true but not good reasons to think that atheism is true.

Theism = the proposition "God exists" is true.

Atheism = the proposition "God does not exist" is true.

They have no idea how to peel this egg.

<mort>, <Check it out>, <jiffy> - none of them took the argument up, but they all spend a lot of time quarreling about nonsense. So they have the time but they waste it on meaningless drivel and low level bickering. The lowest form of argument.

This goes to show that if you press them on the premises, and don't accept their attempts to misdirect, you can expose their ignorance for all to see. Not only ignorance, but their unwillingness to defend their worldview.

Ignorant cowards.

<abdel> Used to fight tooth and nail against my moral argument but then admitted that, <!! may choke on his tongue when I say this, but OMV do exist...>

Point.

<Refused> debated me for a week about the "circularity" of the moral argument. Then he finally said, <fine, I retract my claim of circularity>, after he had already doubled down on his position.

Very satisfying point.

<jiffy> finally admitted that he <never disagreed with the premises> of the moral argument, admitting he never refuted them after a week's worth of debate.

<GSM> was hoisted by his own petard when he made a point about moral values not being absolute because nothing is always wrong. When asked to apply his logic to bigotry he dropped the debate.

Very satisfying point.

<mort> has been shown that on atheism, he has no right to condemn whatever happens in Israel because OMV do not exist. It's all just opinion. <mort> also declined to debate me about the topic of theism vs atheism.

Point.

<Al wazir> enjoys that others think he is a scientist, and therefore very smart. He will not get in the ring with me because he knows that once he's out of his field, he's very, very average.

<achieve> Tried to make a laymen's point that can't be found in scholarly work: that moral values can't exist objectively if they are grounded in God. This idiotic notion was exposed and he disappeared. It's all he had.

Point.

<pawn to qb4> put forth various argument based on the Genetic Fallacy. He continuously conflated moral epistemology with ontology.

Thank goodness they aren't trying to do that anymore!

Point.

<jlspooge> Defended <pawn to qb4> argument as not being a claim of circularity, but it was.

Point.

<softpaw> foisted the genetic fallacy too. This was in the early days of this discussion, so they weren't educated about the Genetic fallacy yet.

Right now I'm wondering who has a longer ponytail, <Jim bartle> or <the focus>. But not <HMM>; he probably has a dike haircut.

I'm sure the question of who has the softest hands goes to <abdel>, but since he's run away as of late I'll have to go with <perfidious>. You just KNOW he's got soft hands!

Also, after reading some old posts I've come to the conclusion that there are definitely at least two posters that have serious mental issues. I won't name them because I kind of feel bad for them.

Finally, I've thoroughly exhausted the Rogoff page on the moral argument. After years of their disagreeing, they finally understand that the argument is valid. They finally understand it is not circular.

Now what? I think the ontological argument is next! I've already had one discussion on it, but I exposed the sophist immediately as a fake.

1. Is it possible that God exists in at least some possible world?

If you say no then you need to give good reasons as to why that is true.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

You don't seem to be stupid, but I didn't think that anyone grown-up and intelligent still promulgated those kind of arguments about god.

You are wrong.

This is a fact.

You don't seem too stupid, I suppose, but I don't think any intelligent grown-up is going to use the argument you just used.

<domdaniel>, do you know what a deductive argument is? Do you believe in logic?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, then can you understand this deductive argument?:

1. If not A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore, A

Can you recognize that as a valid, deductive argument?

I hope this is a grown-up enough argument for you so far. We could always just start quarreling if you think that is more grown-up. Just let me know.

I'm going to take that argument, which is a valid, deductive argument and fill it in with premises and conclusion.

1. If God doesn't not exist then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

<domdaniel> can you see that this argument retains the valid form presented just prior?

Why believe these premises are true?

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.

Simple. If moral values are merely ideas in our minds, then they do not exist objectively but rather subjectively. This should be obvious. That is, moral values don't exits in reality like the external world around us. They only exist as concepts or ideas in the mind. As such, there is no one standard. You have what you think is right and I have what I think is right - but there is no objective right or wrong, just our relative opinions.

However, if moral values are grounded in God then they exist apart from our concepts of them as part of God's nature being expressed in the universe. This makes their existence objective, just like the sun exists objectively. The sun isn't just a concept in one's mind, although a concept still exists and that concept is subjective to other people's concepts, it exists in reality whether you or I agree or not.

In the same way, moral values exist objectively if God exists because he and only he can provide that transcendental foundation by which to ground a moral standard.

<domdaniel> - Many philosophers, both theist and atheist, believe that premise one is true. Even famous and great atheist philosophers like Nietzsche. So, it's not just Christians or theists that believe this.

For premise two, we know by way of inner moral experience that moral values exist objectively.

Just imagine this: Suppose someone throws a homosexual off a rooftop, for the crime of being gay.

If moral values are not objective, then you can't condemn this as wrong. It might be illegal in some places (not all places) but you couldn't say it was wrong. You can say that you personally find it distasteful, but you can't say it's really wrong.

The guys that threw him off the roof think is good. Since there's no standard and only your opinion, you can merely voice your opinion. But no wrong has been done.

However, if moral values exits objectively, then we can condemn some actions at least as being morally wrong EVEN IF some people say it's okay.

Do you think there is an objective moral difference between loving a baby and torturing a baby? Or, is the difference just a matter of opinion?

<I mean, once you start offering 'data' such as "Joseph of Arimathea ... did" - whatever - you're on a hiding to nothing. Don't you see how *all* narratives from 2000 years ago have been distorted? How no such information can be trusted?>

You speak of 'belief in god'. Would you at least be willing to amend that to 'belief in a god'? One of the infinite number of possible gods, many of them insane.

In other words, it is quite possible - though unlikely, in my opinion - that our universe had a creator, but hard data about any such creator entity is lacking. And the versions put forward by so-called major religions, from Thor to Allah and Yahweh, tend to be parochial or absurd.

No, they don't exist.

And that's not saying that any of your comments are incorrect.

This is nonsense. Do you believe what you said is true? Will you really say, "I don't believe what I said was true."?

You say you don't believe in the truth of logical inference. This is nonsense.

1. If A then B
2. A

Do you believe the conclusion

3. Therefore, B

is true?

Since you made a point about how clever you are in avoiding the word "belief", we should put this nonsense away immediately and raise your level of discourse.

No. God, in classical theism, is a maximally great being. Therefore there can only be one God. The idea of gods like zues and odin or thor, these gods were thought of as humanoid figures made of material like you and me. That's the ancient concept of many gods.

The concept of monotheism is that of a God which is a maximally great being, with maximal excellence and maximally great attributes (love, justice, kindness, forgiveness, omnipotence, omniscience,) the creator of the universe, a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being.

This is the God that both theistic and atheistic philosophers argue about. Based on this very concept of God, many atheist philosophers try to show that the very concept of God is incoherent precisely because his is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and so forth.

One God. Classical theism.

There are no long refuted positions on this page. If you think there are, then let's debate them.

You didn't read what I wrote, otherwise you wouldn't ask this question.

To say moral values exist objectively is to say that they exist independent of human thought and perception. They exist out there, like the external world around us. On theism, when we say that moral values are grounded in God, what we mean is that "the good" is God's very nature. These morals are not decisions God makes; they are his nature. So on this view, moral values are sort of emanating from God himself, and our brains can perceive them.

To say that moral values exist relatively is to say that moral values only exist as concepts or ideas in our minds. This is why they do not exist objectively.

I can say it's good to throw a homosexual of a rooftop. You could sad that's bad. Who is right?

We both are because I invent my morality and you invent yours. You can't impose your version of morality on me, just as I have no right to impose my version of morality on you.

After you stop posting, and after I stop posting (and this will be my only one here), BP will carry on without us and claim a "point." I find that the most amusing part of it all.>

Well this is the level I've come to expect from atheists that don't have the courage to debate me. You have the time to come here and make your comment, because it makes you feel better, but you would never debate me because you are afraid to injure your pride. It's very common among atheists.

They don't like to actually have to deal with specific arguments and premises. What can they do?

These dullards really can't punch their way out of a paper bag.

No fight from them -