Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[jjohnjil]

Yes Len but there are different sets of laws which govern differing levels of complexity.

Yes, depending on which country you are in. You then make a personal choice as to whether or not you are going to abide by them, and accept the consequences if you don't.

Yes, keep away from Saudi, Len, OM is different over there!

Funny fella, ol' God, ain't he!

[Leonard James]

Yes, keep away from Saudi, Len, OM is different over there!

Which is a pity ... some of those Arab types are very dishy!
 

Funny fella, ol' God, ain't he!

Indeed he would be, if he existed. 

[jjohnjil]

Yes, keep away from Saudi, Len, OM is different over there!

Which is a pity ... some of those Arab types are very dishy!
 

Funny fella, ol' God, ain't he!

Indeed he would be, if he existed. 

Can you doubt it, after all the convincing arguments we've heard over the years!  I mean, Vlad thinks he exists so there can be no ifs or buts, surely? 

And don't keep calling me Shirley!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes Len but there are different sets of laws which govern differing levels of complexity.

Yes, depending on which country you are in. You then make a personal choice as to whether or not you are going to abide by them, and accept the consequences if you don't.

That's not the kind of Law i'm talking about Len.
When you get to being intelligent and conscious and free from automatic reflex behaviour a Moral law kicks in because of the truth of the nature of your existence.

[jjohnjil]

Yes Len but there are different sets of laws which govern differing levels of complexity.

Yes, depending on which country you are in. You then make a personal choice as to whether or not you are going to abide by them, and accept the consequences if you don't.

That's not the kind of Law i'm talking about Len.
When you get to being intelligent and conscious and free from automatic reflex behaviour a Moral law kicks in because of the truth of the nature of your existence.

DT says gay marriage is OM, but it hasn't kicked in for millions of Christians the world over who say it's wrong ... nor did it for the tens of millions who said it was wrong until quite recently!

Still, you know best, oh Wise One!

[Leonard James]

That's not the kind of Law i'm talking about Len.
When you get to being intelligent and conscious and free from automatic reflex behaviour a Moral law kicks in because of the truth of the nature of your existence.

Nonsense! Nothing "kicks in". You simply use your intelligence and decide what is morally right in your opinion. That's all.

However, if you are happier believing that something "out there" is pulling your puppet strings, go for it. 

[Dryghtons Toe]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

This whole thread started with Alan advocating the moral argument for God, namely that
        (1) Morality is objective
        (2) That God is the best explanation of objective morality
        (3) therefore our moral experience provides a good reason to believe in God

Actually Alan's version is stronger than mine as he seems to agree with you that "God is the only possible explanation for OM".

Since then the main point of argument is whether or not we have any independent reason to believe that morality is objective and Alan and I have been arguing that we do - I have been arguing consistently that the character of our moral experience implicitly assumes objective morality and that if we reject OM we cannot maintain morality as it actually exists in human society and as we experience it. I have said therefore that we have a choice between accepting OM or accepting that morality as it exists is distorted and illusionary in some of its core elements.

Various posters who are anti-realist about morality have been trying to argue that this is not true and that we can make sense of morality in a way that makes sense of morality as it exists. Every time this has been done they have not been able to deal with any of the criticisms of the anti-realist models they have advocated.

None of this discussion about whether or not it is possible to be an anti-realist about morality and maintain the core structures of morality requires any reference to God whatsoever - it is entirely about whether we can match a sense of morality being relative or based on personal non-cognitive responses to our normal moral discourse. You however, possibly due to the public failure of the arguments from your fellow anti-realists or possibly because you just haven't been keeping up, seem to want to ignore this entire, very long debate and pretend it has happened. As the whole point of this discussion is that I am claiming their ARE reasons to think morality is objective independent from our belief in God, then you simply stating that whether or not OM exists is only something motivated by belief in God is getting this whole discussion backwards and entirely missing the point. The fact that some of the most eminent philosophers in the world are both atheists and moral realists simply adds to the silliness of your claim, as they clearly also, like me, think there are independent reasons to think that morality is objective.

[Dryghtons Toe]

I'm not ignoring the law importance Leonard I just don't think its relevant to what we awe discussing one way or the other.

The reason I've asked you the same question is because you seem to be missing the contradiction in wha you are saying. The situation we are discussing is that someone is bully a gay child to the point of suicide and that the person doing it thinks its ok (he may hate people and think its a good thing)

You said (1) that what makes something right are our opinions about it or personal responses to it

Right in the oinion of the person concerned.

And (2) that bullying the child is always wrong no matter what the person doing it thinks about it.

Yes, that is my opinion.

(1) and (2) are contradictions because if (1) is correct and if the person doing it thinks its right, then it IS right for him as it's his opinion that makes it right. You might disprove of what he is doing but you can't say he is wrong as he has met the only criteria you have that makes an action right..namely his personal opinions about it. All you have left is personal disapproval.

Which in no way alters the fact that the right and the wrong are personal opinions. That is why I keep mentioning the law. People who think that it is right to do things like TACTDFF have to be controlled for obvious reasons.

Once again I must tell you that right and wrong are just human concepts, and do not exist outside the human mind. The universe, nature and everything non-human are entirely indifferent to our "right and wrong".

No one disagrees that immoral people exists and the law protects us from them. The question I am concerned about is whether, when we say it is wrong we mean something more than 'I disapprove of it'. This question is quite distinct from any question about laws. As pointed our there are places were the law is to stone gay people to death, the fact that this is the law doesn't stop us asking whether or not it is an immoral law. you said before that bully a gay child is wrong everywhere, so if you still believe this, it follows that it will also be true in places where the law allow such things. Law then cannot be identical with what is morally right.

What I'm bothered about is that you have made it very clear you think saying something is wrong means more than just 'I disapprove of it'. The problem is you haven't addressed the contradiction I highlighted in my last post between wanting to say other people are wrong and also wanting to say that it is their personal responses that make it wrong. Simply asserting that its a 'human concept' doesn't help with this. I know thats what you think, I'm interested in the implications of this for what you want to say concerning ascribing wrongness to the actions of other people who do not think their actions are wrong.

[Andy]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

This whole thread started with Alan advocating the moral argument for God, namely that
        (1) Morality is objective
        (2) That God is the best explanation of objective morality
        (3) therefore our moral experience provides a good reason to believe in God

Actually Alan's version is stronger than mine as he seems to agree with you that "God is the only possible explanation for OM".

Since then the main point of argument is whether or not we have any independent reason to believe that morality is objective and Alan and I have been arguing that we do - I have been arguing consistently that the character of our moral experience implicitly assumes objective morality and that if we reject OM we cannot maintain morality as it actually exists in human society and as we experience it. I have said therefore that we have a choice between accepting OM or accepting that morality as it exists is distorted and illusionary in some of its core elements.

Various posters who are anti-realist about morality have been trying to argue that this is not true and that we can make sense of morality in a way that makes sense of morality as it exists. Every time this has been done they have not been able to deal with any of the criticisms of the anti-realist models they have advocated.

None of this discussion about whether or not it is possible to be an anti-realist about morality and maintain the core structures of morality requires any reference to God whatsoever - it is entirely about whether we can match a sense of morality being relative or based on personal non-cognitive responses to our normal moral discourse. You however, possibly due to the public failure of the arguments from your fellow anti-realists or possibly because you just haven't been keeping up, seem to want to ignore this entire, very long debate and pretend it has happened. As the whole point of this discussion is that I am claiming their ARE reasons to think morality is objective independent from our belief in God, then you simply stating that whether or not OM exists is only something motivated by belief in God is getting this whole discussion backwards and entirely missing the point. The fact that some of the most eminent philosophers in the world are both atheists and moral realists simply adds to the silliness of your claim, as they clearly also, like me, think there are independent reasons to think that morality is objective.

What moral realists fail to take into account are the values our morality is based on. You talk about it being truth-apt that there are ways which are best for human flourishing.. and then stop there. I said this earlier on and I'll say it again now, you are confusing the map for the place. If morality is objective, you should be able to find whether it's morally right or wrong to value human flourishing, and if you can't, which is what I think, then your objective deck based on that foundational value comes crashing down.

[Dryghtons Toe]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

This whole thread started with Alan advocating the moral argument for God, namely that
        (1) Morality is objective
        (2) That God is the best explanation of objective morality
        (3) therefore our moral experience provides a good reason to believe in God

Actually Alan's version is stronger than mine as he seems to agree with you that "God is the only possible explanation for OM".

Since then the main point of argument is whether or not we have any independent reason to believe that morality is objective and Alan and I have been arguing that we do - I have been arguing consistently that the character of our moral experience implicitly assumes objective morality and that if we reject OM we cannot maintain morality as it actually exists in human society and as we experience it. I have said therefore that we have a choice between accepting OM or accepting that morality as it exists is distorted and illusionary in some of its core elements.

Various posters who are anti-realist about morality have been trying to argue that this is not true and that we can make sense of morality in a way that makes sense of morality as it exists. Every time this has been done they have not been able to deal with any of the criticisms of the anti-realist models they have advocated.

None of this discussion about whether or not it is possible to be an anti-realist about morality and maintain the core structures of morality requires any reference to God whatsoever - it is entirely about whether we can match a sense of morality being relative or based on personal non-cognitive responses to our normal moral discourse. You however, possibly due to the public failure of the arguments from your fellow anti-realists or possibly because you just haven't been keeping up, seem to want to ignore this entire, very long debate and pretend it has happened. As the whole point of this discussion is that I am claiming their ARE reasons to think morality is objective independent from our belief in God, then you simply stating that whether or not OM exists is only something motivated by belief in God is getting this whole discussion backwards and entirely missing the point. The fact that some of the most eminent philosophers in the world are both atheists and moral realists simply adds to the silliness of your claim, as they clearly also, like me, think there are independent reasons to think that morality is objective.

What moral realists fail to take into account are the values our morality is based on. You talk about it being truth-apt that there are ways which are best for human flourishing.. and then stop there. I said this earlier on and I'll say it again now, you are confusing the map for the place. If morality is objective, you should be able to find whether it's morally right or wrong to value human flourishing, and if you can't, which is what I think, then your objective deck based on that foundational value comes crashing down.

No I don't stop there not at all - I have gone way beyond there and given an account of why it is that I think human flourishing is objectively important. I have said this is based on teleological facts grounded in God's purposes. I have been entirely up front about the importance of God in grounding morality rather than leaving this account of human flourishing floating as you claim. Atheist realists may have the problem you refer to but theists don't.

[Andy]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

This whole thread started with Alan advocating the moral argument for God, namely that
        (1) Morality is objective
        (2) That God is the best explanation of objective morality
        (3) therefore our moral experience provides a good reason to believe in God

Actually Alan's version is stronger than mine as he seems to agree with you that "God is the only possible explanation for OM".

Since then the main point of argument is whether or not we have any independent reason to believe that morality is objective and Alan and I have been arguing that we do - I have been arguing consistently that the character of our moral experience implicitly assumes objective morality and that if we reject OM we cannot maintain morality as it actually exists in human society and as we experience it. I have said therefore that we have a choice between accepting OM or accepting that morality as it exists is distorted and illusionary in some of its core elements.

Various posters who are anti-realist about morality have been trying to argue that this is not true and that we can make sense of morality in a way that makes sense of morality as it exists. Every time this has been done they have not been able to deal with any of the criticisms of the anti-realist models they have advocated.

None of this discussion about whether or not it is possible to be an anti-realist about morality and maintain the core structures of morality requires any reference to God whatsoever - it is entirely about whether we can match a sense of morality being relative or based on personal non-cognitive responses to our normal moral discourse. You however, possibly due to the public failure of the arguments from your fellow anti-realists or possibly because you just haven't been keeping up, seem to want to ignore this entire, very long debate and pretend it has happened. As the whole point of this discussion is that I am claiming their ARE reasons to think morality is objective independent from our belief in God, then you simply stating that whether or not OM exists is only something motivated by belief in God is getting this whole discussion backwards and entirely missing the point. The fact that some of the most eminent philosophers in the world are both atheists and moral realists simply adds to the silliness of your claim, as they clearly also, like me, think there are independent reasons to think that morality is objective.

What moral realists fail to take into account are the values our morality is based on. You talk about it being truth-apt that there are ways which are best for human flourishing.. and then stop there. I said this earlier on and I'll say it again now, you are confusing the map for the place. If morality is objective, you should be able to find whether it's morally right or wrong to value human flourishing, and if you can't, which is what I think, then your objective deck based on that foundational value comes crashing down.

No I don't stop there not at all - I have gone way beyond there and given an account of why it is that I think human flourishing is objectively important. I have said this is based on teleological facts grounded in God's purposes. I have been entirely up front about the importance of God in grounding morality rather than leaving this account of human flourishing floating as you claim. Atheist realists may have the problem you refer to but theists don't.

Yes, exactly, you have to invoke god, but god is defined as more than just the grounder of teleological facts, so you have to work to establish the other attributes of god can first at least hold logically. I don't think invoking a god who can only do what is morally right gets you anywhere anyway, but that's perhaps for another discussion.

As for atheist realists, I agree, they have the problem too.

Also, this is another area where you differ from Alan. Alan tries to use the existence of OM as a sure fire way of showing god exists, but if he invoked god like you have here, his argument would be circular.

[Dryghtons Toe]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

This whole thread started with Alan advocating the moral argument for God, namely that
        (1) Morality is objective
        (2) That God is the best explanation of objective morality
        (3) therefore our moral experience provides a good reason to believe in God

Actually Alan's version is stronger than mine as he seems to agree with you that "God is the only possible explanation for OM".

Since then the main point of argument is whether or not we have any independent reason to believe that morality is objective and Alan and I have been arguing that we do - I have been arguing consistently that the character of our moral experience implicitly assumes objective morality and that if we reject OM we cannot maintain morality as it actually exists in human society and as we experience it. I have said therefore that we have a choice between accepting OM or accepting that morality as it exists is distorted and illusionary in some of its core elements.

Various posters who are anti-realist about morality have been trying to argue that this is not true and that we can make sense of morality in a way that makes sense of morality as it exists. Every time this has been done they have not been able to deal with any of the criticisms of the anti-realist models they have advocated.

None of this discussion about whether or not it is possible to be an anti-realist about morality and maintain the core structures of morality requires any reference to God whatsoever - it is entirely about whether we can match a sense of morality being relative or based on personal non-cognitive responses to our normal moral discourse. You however, possibly due to the public failure of the arguments from your fellow anti-realists or possibly because you just haven't been keeping up, seem to want to ignore this entire, very long debate and pretend it has happened. As the whole point of this discussion is that I am claiming their ARE reasons to think morality is objective independent from our belief in God, then you simply stating that whether or not OM exists is only something motivated by belief in God is getting this whole discussion backwards and entirely missing the point. The fact that some of the most eminent philosophers in the world are both atheists and moral realists simply adds to the silliness of your claim, as they clearly also, like me, think there are independent reasons to think that morality is objective.

What moral realists fail to take into account are the values our morality is based on. You talk about it being truth-apt that there are ways which are best for human flourishing.. and then stop there. I said this earlier on and I'll say it again now, you are confusing the map for the place. If morality is objective, you should be able to find whether it's morally right or wrong to value human flourishing, and if you can't, which is what I think, then your objective deck based on that foundational value comes crashing down.

No I don't stop there not at all - I have gone way beyond there and given an account of why it is that I think human flourishing is objectively important. I have said this is based on teleological facts grounded in God's purposes. I have been entirely up front about the importance of God in grounding morality rather than leaving this account of human flourishing floating as you claim. Atheist realists may have the problem you refer to but theists don't.

Yes, exactly, you have to invoke god, but god is defined as more than just the grounder of teleological facts, so you have to work to establish the other attributes of god can first at least hold logically. I don't think invoking a god who can only do what is morally right gets you anywhere anyway, but that's perhaps for another discussion.

As for atheist realists, I agree, they have the problem too.

Also, this is another area where you differ from Alan. Alan tries to use the existence of OM as a sure fire way of showing god exists, but if he invoked god like you have here, his argument would be circular.

I don't have to detail a full theology of Gods attributes into order to maintain that God can be the grounder of teleological facts, and if I did want to go into that the place for it certainly wouldn't be on this forum! But I'm not sure thats the right interpretation of what Alan is saying, you may be right about his position but he did earlier on this threat explicitly endorse my account of this arguement being one of consistency with our moral intuitions as the basis for believing OM. I don't think he has ever gone into detail on premise 2.

[Andy]

I don't have to detail a full theology of Gods attributes into order to maintain that God can be the grounder of teleological facts, and if I did want to go into that the place for it certainly wouldn't be on this forum!

Actually, you kinda do. It doesn't have to be in any order, but if one attribute of god can be found to be logically wanting, then it isn't god that is the grounder of morality. Solely on that, that doesn't mean there isn't an entity that grounds morality, only it's not the god you originally thought.

Regardless, I wouldn't want you or expect you to do it on this forum either!

But I'm not sure thats the right interpretation of what Alan is saying, you may be right about his position but he did earlier on this threat explicitly endorse my account of this arguement being one of consistency with our moral intuitions as the basis for believing OM.

Except now you've agreed that there is a problem with this, which you solve with god, but atheist realists still flounder with it. Well, they do if they hold to OM.

I don't think he has ever gone into detail on premise 2.

Alan doesn't formulate the argument how you have above. He pretty much goes with how WLC formulates it:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So with premise 2 here, invoking god as the grounder of morality to show that OM exists is to have a circular argument. As you probably know, that doesn't make it invalid, it's just that we learn nothing new and the whole argument is a waste of everyone's time.

[Leonard James]

Alan doesn't formulate the argument how you have above. He pretty much goes with how WLC formulates it:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So with premise 2 here, invoking god as the grounder of morality to show that OM exists is to have a circular argument. As you probably know, that doesn't make it invalid, it's just that we learn nothing new and the whole argument is a waste of everyone's time.

Even I can see that such an argument is stupid.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Actually, you kinda do. It doesn't have to be in any order, but if one attribute of god can be found to be logically wanting, then it isn't god that is the grounder of morality. Solely on that, that doesn't mean there isn't an entity that grounds morality, only it's not the god you originally thought.

Regardless, I wouldn't want you or expect you to do it on this forum either!

That’s going to be true of anything we argue about on here about God though isn’t it? It’s just saying our idea of God has to be consistent – well sure but if we just said that about every topic we’d never discuss anything else….besides which there is a tonne of theology done on this. Still we seem to agree that that’s were the discussion should be not here so I’ll move on.

Except now you've agreed that there is a problem with this, which you solve with god, but atheist realists still flounder with it. Well, they do if they hold to OM.

You’d expect me to be happy to endorse that God provides the best explanation on a thread where I’m supporting the moral argument for God right? I do think there are different moves a non-theistic realist can make though and I would probably argue for realism even if I wasn’t a theist – but obviously this would be constructed quite differently from the way I have done it here. I’m not going to do the atheists job for them though and there are some very well-known and capable atheist moral-realists who have made this case.

Alan doesn't formulate the argument how you have above. He pretty much goes with how WLC formulates it:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So with premise 2 here, invoking god as the grounder of morality to show that OM exists is to have a circular argument. As you probably know, that doesn't make it invalid, it's just that we learn nothing new and the whole argument is a waste of everyone's time.

Well God as the grounder of morality is part of premise 1. If Alan agrees with me that there are completely independent reasons for thinking OM exists as I do then the argument even formulised like Craig does above does not have to be circular, as premise 2 is held for reasons entirely independent of God. It depends on whether you take premise 2 of needing to be an entirely self-contained account of OM or simply being that we have reason to believe it is objective. If it’s that former then it would be circular but then you also wouldn’t need premise 1 so the fact that it’s there implies that it isn’t. alan has argued for his premise 2 without any reference to God based on our moral intuitions about TACTDJFF so the second interpretation would seem right. Either way this is Alan’s version not mine so there is a limit to how far I want to spend my time on an exegesis of other peoples arguments.

Regards

DT

[Dryghtons Toe]

Even I can see that such an argument is stupid. 

Great, can you also now recognise the contradiction in your previous responses I’ve pointed out above?  Just wondered if you were planning to explain that any time soon?

[BeRational]

Even I can see that such an argument is stupid. 

Great, can you also now recognise the contradiction in your previous responses I’ve pointed out above?  Just wondered if you were planning to explain that any time soon?

Can you show your objective method to  work out the objective morality of same sex marriage for example.

Please remember not to use any personal opinions when doing so.

[Leonard James]

Even I can see that such an argument is stupid. 

Great, can you also now recognise the contradiction in your previous responses I’ve pointed out above?  Just wondered if you were planning to explain that any time soon?

I'm afraid I can't follow your argument that OM exists. There are no grounds for such a belief.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Can you show your objective method to work out the objective morality of same sex marriage for example.

Please remember not to use any personal opinions when doing so.

I’ve done that – I’ve explained that we’d do so by looking at its implications for human flourishing and justifying this in turn by deepening our understanding of Gods purposes, God being the objective ground of moral truth.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Even I can see that such an argument is stupid. 

Great, can you also now recognise the contradiction in your previous responses I’ve pointed out above?  Just wondered if you were planning to explain that any time soon?

I'm afraid I can't follow your argument that OM exists. There are no grounds for such a belief.

So you keep asserting Leonard but if you can’t follow the argument then I suppose you wouldn’t be able to say that would you. Anyhow I’m more interested in you explaining the contradiction in your responses here..

To repeat:

The situation we are discussing is that someone is bully a gay child to the point of suicide and that the person doing it thinks its ok (he may hate people and think its a good thing)

You said (1) that what makes something right are our opinions about it or personal responses to it

And (2) that bullying the child is always wrong no matter what the person doing it thinks about it.

(1) and (2) are contradictions because if (1) is correct and if the person doing it thinks its right, then it IS right for him as it's his opinion that makes it right. You might disprove of what he is doing but you can't say he is wrong as he has met the only criteria you have that makes an action right..namely his personal opinions about it. All you have left is personal disapproval. Yet you have also been very clear that you think, like most people, than saying “its wrong to bully a child” means more than just “I disapprove of it.”

Putting it simply Leonard you need to either reject (1) or reject (2). Which is it?

[BeRational]

Can you show your objective method to work out the objective morality of same sex marriage for example.

Please remember not to use any personal opinions when doing so.

I’ve done that – I’ve explained that we’d do so by looking at its implications for human flourishing and justifying this in turn by deepening our understanding of Gods purposes, God being the objective ground of moral truth.

No as this relies on your opinions and is NOT objective.
You say god is the objective ground of moral truth. This you need to demonstrate not just assert.
So your claim fails.

[Gordon]

I wonder if Alan considers KALJFF to be objectively wrong?

[Dryghtons Toe]

Can you show your objective method to work out the objective morality of same sex marriage for example.

Please remember not to use any personal opinions when doing so.

I’ve done that – I’ve explained that we’d do so by looking at its implications for human flourishing and justifying this in turn by deepening our understanding of Gods purposes, God being the objective ground of moral truth.

No as this relies on your opinions and is NOT objective.
You say god is the objective ground of moral truth. This you need to demonstrate not just assert.
So your claim fails.

It may be my opinion but it doesn’t RELY on the fact that it’s my opinion to be true or false, it relies on facts of the matter, which is why it is objective.

God being the basis of morality is an ontologically basic claim in the same way that claiming everything that exists is matter or that physical causality is the only possible types of causality are ontologically basis claims. Like many metaphysical claims they cannot be verifiably demonstrated nevertheless they remain statements that are either factually true or false. As with all metaphysics the aim is not to prove but to give a consistent account that makes sense of our experience. This is exactly what I’ve done in relation to morality while the anti-realists cannot do that. All you keep doing is making confused claims boiling down to ‘I you can’t prove OM it doesn’t exist,’ just stated in different ways to obscure the fact that its just the same old error…but just as previous times you have tried this it’s nothing more than a confusion of truth and verification on your part.

[BeRational]

You keep failing to demonstrate any objective moral values, and simply assert stuff instead.

I do not accept that god exists let alone is responsible for any moral grounding.

If you rely on this and cannot demonstrate it to be true, then you fail.

[Dryghtons Toe]

You keep failing to demonstrate any objective moral values, and simply assert stuff instead.

I do not accept that god exists let alone is responsible for any moral grounding.

If you rely on this and cannot demonstrate it to be true, then you fail.

As usual your posts just rely entirely on ambiguity and misunderstanding for their force and once that's cleared up they become vacuous.

You talk of 'Failing to demonstrate' The key is understanding what you think it means to 'demonstrate' it. If you think it means to prove it then I certainly haven't failed in my argument because you can't fail if you don't do something I've never set out to do. I've made it very clear that you can't prove OM and the moral argument for God doesn't require us to prove it. Its an argument with force for those who think morality is objective.

If by contrast by demonstrate you mean provide reason to believe morality is objective I certainly have argued that and not via assertion, I've made a clear case of why objectivity is implicit in our moral practice and how anti-realist accounts can't cope with this. This critique of anti-realism remains unanswered.

Unless you can answer it you are left with either accepting God exists, articulating a none-theistic grounds for OM or accepting that our morality is fundamentally distorted. As you don't want to do the first and not been able to provide the second you are left logically with admitting the third....and yet every time I ask the atheists here to just admit this they shy away from it. All I'm asking you to do is be honest about the implications of your beliefs...that has consistently been my argument throughout both threads and so far it seems I have entirely succeeded in making my case....unless you've got something more to offer?