I can't tell you why God did anything at all, not even one single thing. In order to do that I would have to enjoy God's unique perspective as an all knowing, timeless being.

<Deus Ex Alekhina> <Does anyone else want to try ascertaining the age of Mary at the birth of Jesus?> No, not really.

After <refused> accused me of running away from the argument, which I won, I stated it again and invited him to debate me.

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.
2. OMV exist
3. Therefore God exist.

I have refuted 9 attempted rebuttals. This is an overview of the type of rebuttals given:

1. Circularity

2. Misunderstanding what objectively existing means

3. epistemology vs ontology; genetic fallacy

4. doubting #1 but not giving his own ontological account for how OMVs exist objectively. He dropped the point.

5. He accidentally agreed with #2

5a. He agrees now that OMV's exist.

6. genetical fallacy again (epistemology vs ontology)

7. Claiming argument is not provable and therefore not persuasive. I showed that only math is provable and the argument is rational to believe and irrational to deny.

8. Genetic fallacy - different societies have different values

9. Logic doesn't matter.

In more detail but still abbreviated:

1. a. <refused: circular reasoning for the win>

It's not circular.

b. <Fine for the fun of it, I will try to debuke even your little sylogism, no matter how flawed it is.>

c. <I wonder where that <Masterdebater> has gone.>

d. <Circularity and formal logic do not rule each other out.>

e. <I am calling you a moron>

f. <Put forward an argument that is not circular, and I might consider mopping the floor with you, intellectually>

g. <Refused: Fine I will retract my claim of circularity, >

2. <refused> OMV's need to be apprehended. He is unable to get the debate off on to round #2 because the words are confusing him. He thinks that moral values can exist objectively in our minds EVEN THOUGH objective (when discussing ontology) means existing independent of the mind.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...

So he is lost before he gets started. He is refuted by his own colossal ignorance.

3. <boomie> <So morals change over time and vary from culture to culture...This strongly suggests that morals are a human invention and have evolved with humans over time.>

A fallacy from a kibitzer with a pleasant disposition.

Refuted: <big pawn: Consider: If moral values are objective because they are grounded in a transcendent foundation, God, and man comes to understand these values incrementally over time, say, as natural selection would allow, that does not address the ontological aspect of the question; that being that moral values exist objectively or not.

Just as the laws of physics and the laws of logic have existed and do exist objectively, but man has only come to understand these things slowly, over time.>

4. <abdel>

<Your first premise has been made doubtful by the objection (very well expressed by <Pinned Piece> among others) that there are plausible ways that objective moral values — assuming they exist — might have come to be *other* than by means of the "emanations from God" to which you attribute them. Have you found any new argument that might overcome this objection?>

big pawn: Nobody has offered an ontological explanation for the existence of objective moral values apart from God. On the theist view, as I explained to <boomie> "In classical theism we understand that moral values are an expression of God's perfect nature. He neither wills them or creates them. Instead, God is the locus of moral goodness and expresses his moral nature upon the universe.

In this way, moral values exist objectively and we perceive them in our moral experience."

5. <Your second premise has been called into question because, as several old forum hands have informed us, two years or so ago, a canvass of the forum revealed that all of those present could agree on only *one* act that was always wrong: rape. (And subsequent comment evinced uncertainty even about that.) Have you new information that would conclusively demonstrate the presence of values on which *everyone* present can agree — noting that of course this is conclusive only for this set of people?>

<all of those present could agree on only *one* act that was always wrong: rape>

Big Pawn: This shows that everyone agrees that rape is objectively wrong. Thus, we can agree that moral values exist objectively.

However, everyone's agreement about moral values does not make them objective. When we talk about how we know moral values, how we come to communicate ideas about moral values, how we come to consensus about moral values, we are talking about moral epistemology. As you might remember, when you conflate moral epistemolgy with moral ontology you commit the genetic fallacy. That is, trying to invalidate a claim (moral ontology) by invalidating how we come to know (epistemology) about that claim.

As a personal note to you, Abdel, as a Muslim you should understand this. The concept of God is one of a maximally excellent, maximally great being. As such God has all of the "good making" properties. This makes him maximally great. If God was not good, then "God" could be improved and thus he would not be a maximally great being. So theists (Islamic, Christian etc..) understand that God IS goodness and therefore he is the locus of moral values.

<abdel>

5a. <Actually (and this will probably make <!!> swallow his tongue in shock), it is my opinion that there *is* one objective moral value, from which all others flow.

It is called Reciprocity, and in what I think its best form it was propounded as follows by Confucius c. 500 BCE: "What you do not want done to you, do not do to others.">

6. <refused> (Third try after circular, not understanding objective and now the genetic fallacy - a known fallacy)

<Moral is tied to our evolutionary history. So in a way our morals are arbitary. >

The genetic fallacy again, and again, and again.

Big Pawn: What you are doing, and I taught everyone here this lesson last year, is committing the genetic fallacy. This is the fallacy of origin. This is (as I explained to <boomie)) when you try to invalidate a claim by invalidating the source - which is a known fallacy.

In this case you are conflating moral ontology which asks how moral values exist (a question of being; reality) with moral epistemology (how we come to know about moral values; evolution, natural selection, social conditioning etc...).

7. <JohnSpooge> This sentence contains the ultimate fallacy that <Big Pawn> will use to justify his arguments, namely, the substitution of phrases like "more plausibly true" or "it is rational to believe" for "true".>

Claiming the argument is no good becaues premises can't be proven. Only math can be proven so we need to talkl about what is rational to believe and what is not. It's a matter of justification.

Big Pawn:It is rational to accept the conclusion when the premises are more plausible than their negations. One need not make a 100% truth claim in order for a deductive argument to be rationally accepted.

8. <al wazir: Anyone who thinks values have an objective existence has to reconcile the wide disparities in moral codes in different societies>

Genetic fallacy again, and again, and again.

Big Pawh: Moral codes in different societies = moral epistemology.

The very existence of objective moral values = ontology; being; reality.

Conflating the two will not undermine the ontological argument. Genetic fallacy.

9. <Everett>

<All these "logical" arguments are just games. Who created these rules of logic anyway?>

A real intellectual here. Who cares about logic anyhow? This is what he says when there is no way out of the argument!

Big Pawn: When you don't value logic you can't think logically. When you don't think logically your thinking will be full of fallacious reasoning.

When your thinking is full of fallacious reasoning you'll be unable to distinguish between right, wrong, truth and falsehood.

That's why I put up these posts as a clear record.

What else?

Well, when they all realized that epistemological claims do not actually address ontological ones, they either agreed with me (abdel), (boomie) or they said that logic is stupid - took their ball, and went home!

Other than that, there hasn't been a serious objection. One would get the idea that after a week of seeing "OMV" on the Rogoff page that there was some sort of big debate where "no one is a clear winner" and "you guys can go on and on and on...there's no winning these debates".

However, nothing could be further from the truth! This is all quite clear and their objections have not been too numerous. It SEEMS numerous to them because they failed, up to a certain point, to understand that they were committing the genetic fallacy over and over again.

The simple argument stands untouched at all by any of these superficial attempts

Jihad is not mentioned in the bible anywhere and there is no justification for it in the old or new testament.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/key-fact...

1. Genetic fallacy
2. Arguing moral lingistics
3. Falsely claiming circularity

Though there are only three categories of rebuttal noted here, the atheists failed to recognize when they were committing the genetic fallacy, when they were arguing ANYTHING but the ontology of moral values and so on.