In deductive form:

<al wazir: 1. If God does not exist, OMV do not exist.

2. God does not exist.

3. Therefore OMV do not exist.>

If moral values exist subjectively (implying relativism) then they are merely opinions. This is similar to what kind of ice cream you like more, chocolate or vanilla. >

I will summarize the progress of the debate on this argument here in my forum.>

***UPDATE***

Atheist <al wazir> has abandoned his argument in the face of my questioning.

My first question was:

Do you <al wazir> believe that your first premise is true?

This was enough to get me back on ignore. He is unable to answer the question.

<al wazir> has dropped the argument.

A true coward. I mean COWARD. These liberals and atheists are cowardly. The proof is in the pudding.

He offers an argument to me, throws down the gauntlet, forms his argument as a deductive one, and then RUNS away.

These godless people are intellectually weak, emotionally weak and psychologically weak. Not only that but they are prideful (why????) and angry.

<The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding> Proverbs 9:10

So far we've had <GeneticFallacy Paw> run his head into the tree over and over and over again with his genetic fallacy, which I defeated. DO you <jls> debate this? Oh, no, that's right, you corrected <softpaw> on this too!

<abdel's> objection to the first premise was:

1. <>

and his objection to the second premise was

2. <>

That puts an end to that.

<p to qb4> argued that premise 2 presupposed premise one. I showed it didn't since I appeal (as the argument history will show) to inner moral experience so there is no circularity.

<softpaw> had to agree with me there when pressed. On July 18 he wrote:

<Softpaw: Big Pawn> <You are unequivocally wrong if you accuse me of being circular with regard to the second premise>

You are not being circular regarding premise #2. >

So there was

1. Softpaws genetic fallacy attempt at refutation. He has now learned his entire approach was fallacious. I'm done debating him. He tried for WEEKS to use the genetic fallacy to refute my claims. Weeks! He now knows better - my job is finished.

2. Abdel said my argument was fallacious because it appealed to ignorance. But the argument is valid and deductive and the conclusion follows given the truth of the premises - which abdel never disputed.

3. Pawn to qb4 tried to say that the argument was circular. This was rebutted by showing, demonstrably, that there was no circularity.

These are the only attempts that have been made so far. It is clear that the atheists have given us no good reasons to doubt either premise and therefore, since the premises are more plausibly true than not, the argument stands.

This would be nipped in the bud!

Women throws a tantrum because her husband won't take her to the lake.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...

4th Attempted Refutation

This weeks attempted refutation featured <softpaw>. His argument was that OMV are logically impossible because OMV's would be bad. This is the 4th attempted refutation of the moral argument.

This is silly because "badness" is an OMV. You might say, "how do you know it's objective and not subjective??" That can be answered clearly, directly and concisely.

If OMV are bad because they are valid and binding independent of our opinions, then that's like saying OMV's are bad because they violate our freewill.

If OMV's are violations of freewill and these violations occur independent of our opinions, then in every case OMV are committing violations of freewill, thus they are evil.

1. If OMV violate freewill they are evil
2. OMV violate freewill.
3. Therefore OMV are evil
4. If OMV's are evil they can't exist objectively.

Hmmm...not too sound if you ask me! Isn't the atheist here make "evil" objective and not subjective? By saying that it's "logically impossible" for OMV's to exist because they are evil (violation of freewill is evil I guess), you are saying that OMV's are EVIL IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD.

This is such a self-refuting attempted refutation that it's simply absurd.

5th attempted refutation:

5. Faced with this embarrassing absurdity, <softpaw> now says that the moral argument is fallacious because it implies a false dilemma.

The false dilemma according to <softpaw> is this:

Moral values don't have to be either objective or subjective (the word relative could also be used for subjective in almost every case).

Therefore the moral argument is fallacious. Hmm...

It seems to me that moral values either:

1. Exist objectively (a)

or

2. Do not exist objectively (-a)

It seems to me that if something is not objective then it is subjective.

One might wonder what Plantinga means, exactly, when he talks about how one is reduced from "knowledge to ignorance" in the context of the quote above. It's simple really: if one knows that premise X is true, but then is forced to give up that truth in order to avoid a conclusion he does not like, then he has gone from "knowing" premise "X" to "not knowing" or "ignorance" of the truth of premise "X".

What could premise X be? Could be that logic is true, morality exists objectively, the law of noncontradiction, cause & effect...

An example: Science is based on the assumption that effects have causes. When we go to the doctor and say, "It hurts over here..." the doctor looks for a cause for this effect. When the scientist says a certain effect has been observed, like man-made global warming, the scientist looks for a cause. When cosmologists notice that the universe is expanding, they look for the cause. When some machinery or engine stops working as it should, the mechanic or engineer looks for a cause.

Whenever we notice that an effect has taken place, we look for a cause. Without this presupposition that effects imply causes, we could not do science. There would simply be no warrant whatsoever to look for causes if we did not first believe that their effects implied them. So cause and effect are presupposed in all areas of life.

Yet when one effect implies a cause that is God, then some people will *suddenly* start to deny what they've known all along: effects have causes. To deny this is to undermine the very science that these people say is the only reliable source of knowledge. Yet, they knock the legs out underneath science very quickly if they realize that cause & effect can lead to a strong argument for theism.

So where there was once knowledge (effects imply causes), there is now ignorance (I don't know if effects have to imply causes).

This is the intellectual cost of atheism; relinquishing knowledge for ignorance in order to preserve one's pride.

References

--SIXTH ATTEMPTED REFUTATION--

This week's latest attempt to refute the moral argument comes from <softpaw>. This attempt is a new one since the others held no sway at all.

This week's attempt to refute premise 2:

Unless the theist can show how the brain perceives moral experience, then we should conclude that moral values don't exist. <softpaw> insisted that I name the "organ" responsible for perceiving moral experience or else we can't claim that OMV's exist. He wanted to know if it was sight, sound, taste, smell or touch. He thought he had a knockdown argument. So....

I asked him if he perceived his own identity. He sensed something coming so he countered that he merely perceived only *thoughts* about his identity. Predictably evasive. I then asked which "organ" or sense was responsible for this perception of this thoughts: sight, hearing, touch, taste or smell?

He backpedaled and admitted that there may be another sense we don't know about. Well, there goes HIS argument - demanding from me that I play "name that sense" LOL!!!

***Further Clarification***

This is just fallacious reasoning. This is like someone denying that RF signals exist *unless* you can show how a radio antenna works.

One need not prove how a radio antenna works in order to claim that RF signals exist. In fact, we can listen to a radio and hear the transmission carried by RF signals - all without explaining how the antenna works. The existence of RF signals is not contingent upon one's being able to explain how an antenna works!

So <softpaw's> is simply off the mark completely, although he has doubled down on this (he thinks he has a home run with this approach, not realizing that he is demonstrably off mark).

hiya BP. Didn't know you had a forum. I think the Rogoffland guys are bored of the moral argument, so I'll reply here.

I didn't try to show the moral argument was circular. It was a little more complicated than that:

1. It can be said, of anything (be it objective moral values, or indeed cats and dogs) in the universe, that it is either "something that cannot exist unless God exists", or that it "can exist even if God does not exist". It may be that one or other of these categories has no members, but there are, obviously, no other categories.

2. Returning to your moral argument, we have this:

i) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

ii) Objective moral values (which could
exist if God does not exist) exist

or else

ii) Objective moral values (which could
not exist if God does not exist) exist...

I showed, easily, that there was no circularity involved in this argument at all. I did this on the rogoff page and probably somewhere in my forum above.

You know what I defend; the classic moral argument:

1. If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In order for this to be circular and therefore fallacious reasoning, the conclusion would have to presuppose the truth of one of the premises. Or, one of the premises would have to assume the truth of the other premise. This is not the case at all.

What it comes down to is this: In order to maintain atheism, one must eventually admit that there is no 'right and wrong' or 'good and evil'. One must admit that detestable acts like rape and so forth are not objectively wrong but rather they are just conventions - like choosing chocolate over vanilla.

This argument is meant to appeal to one's inner experience and to one's own personal sense of truth. From my point of view I never expect ANYONE (who is arguing against me) to actually admit, out loud, that they were wrong about moral values being objective etc... Words are cheap and we can all say whatever we want whenever we want - especially to save face and pride.

However, after all of that is over the interlocutors are left alone in their silence and quiet time. In that time they can reflect on how the "really feel" about the nature of right and wrong. They can reflect deeply over time, and only then when the heat of the debate is off can they calm down, open their minds and think critically.

Such debates are never, in my book, about making the other person admit they were wrong. Instead, I'm just planting seeds. I expect the greatest benefit to go to the casual reader who is not emotionally charged up with the debates.

The history of the moral argument on the KR page is fantastic in my opinion. Those who argued against me had to shift position and try new ways of defeating the argument over and over again. This shows that their initial reasoning was not sufficient, otherwise they would not have tried new arguments. It's like a game of chess where I kept letting the other guy take back bad moves and play on - over and over.

I will be back to debating and causing trouble soon enough - been busy, busy, busy with work.

Once we've judged to the best of our ability the right thing to do, how is it possible to do otherwise? Sequentially, if we have actually judged rightly, then we have already considered the lies we can tell ourselves and rejected them. This is how we judge with rightly.

Having rejected foolishness in the process of judging, how is it that we can "change our mind" and then act against our best judgment?