If GOD does not exist, then everything is permissible.

[Angra Mainyu]

No, that isn't what they are saying. That is what you are saying.

I was explaining to Keith&Co what any theist with even a basic understanding of philosophy is saying when they make such arguments.
Many nontheists fail to realize that, and give bad arguments. Many theists laugh at them, or at least defeat them in debates, because the nontheists in question do not even realize what the debates are about.
I don't like that result, so once in a while, when I have time and come across one of those mistakes (or several) I explain this to some nontheists so that they do not make the same mistakes.

I don't have an interest in any sort of debate about what they say. You can always find out what you're saying for yourself. You just need to dedicate time and effort to search and study their obscure arguments. Or you can keep misunderstanding and targeting the wrong argument, believing you got it right. Again, up to you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

You beat me to it.

By the way, how do I know when to tag on "meta" like you did when you said, "metaethical?"

You can find definitions of "metaethics" here and here, alongside considerably detailed analyses, but to make it brief:
First-order ethical claims (or just ethical claims) are claims like "Abortion is sometimes immoral, and sometimes it is not"; "what Ted Cruz did that day was wrong"; "Hillary Clinton should be indicted", "Muhammad was evil", "Jesus was not morally perfect", etc. (still, some philosophers will make a further distinction, but in any event, under no terminology is one of those claims a metaethical claim).
Metaethical claims are claims like "Moral obligations are /aren't the commands of God", "Moral properties are not identical to properties described in terms that are not overtly moral", "There is no analytical reduction between the term 'immoral' and any expression given not using terms like 'morally wrong', 'immoral', 'morally impermissible', etc.", "It is impossible that a moral property is instantiated, but 'X is immoral' attributes the property of immorality to X, so it's necessarily false'", "If God did not exist, moral properties would not exist, either.", and so on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No, that isn't what they are saying. That is what you are saying.

I was explaining to Keith&Co what any theist with even a basic understanding of philosophy is saying when they make such arguments.

Ah.
I don't think that applies to most of the internet apologists who throw that phrase out, though. They heard someone else use it, they don't really understand the original argument,but they like the conclusion, so they parrot the key words tricky phrases.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I was explaining to Keith&Co what any theist with even a basic understanding of philosophy is saying when they make such arguments.

Ah.
I don't think that applies to most of the internet apologists who throw that phrase out, though. They heard someone else use it, they don't really understand the original argument,but they like the conclusion, so they parrot the key words tricky phrases.

While I would say nearly all people don't understand the original argument (in the sense of the reasons given in support of the premises of the formal argument; i.e., in the sense of arguing a case)), in my experience a substantial number (maybe most, maybe not) of those who use it do understand what "Everything is permissible" means in that context.
But if you think this particular theist did not mean that, what do you think they mean by that expression, and why do you think they mean that?

 

[skepticalbip]

No, that isn't what they are saying. That is what you are saying.

I was explaining to Keith&Co what any theist with even a basic understanding of philosophy is saying when they make such arguments.
Many nontheists fail to realize that, and give bad arguments. Many theists laugh at them, or at least defeat them in debates, because the nontheists in question do not even realize what the debates are about.
I don't like that result, so once in a while, when I have time and come across one of those mistakes (or several) I explain this to some nontheists so that they do not make the same mistakes.

I don't have an interest in any sort of debate about what they say. You can always find out what you're saying for yourself. You just need to dedicate time and effort to search and study their obscure arguments. Or you can keep misunderstanding and targeting the wrong argument, believing you got it right. Again, up to you.

I seriously doubt (and have not seen) that theists, in general, argue from any "deep" philosophical position. I see them arguing from baseless beliefs they accepted unquestionably. Even if they did argue philosophically, your explanation of their basis is piss poor philosophy. It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god. Their second premise would have to be that all "true morals" come from this god. Both are assuming the conclusion that any supposed moral beliefs from any other source are not "true morals".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I seriously doubt (and have not seen) that theists, in general, argue from any "deep" philosophical position.

And I have seen many theists destroy many atheists in online debates, while the atheists never even understood - and in nearly all cases, almost certainly never will understand - that they had lost the argument, let alone that they had lost by a mile - or more like a light year -, and in fact, they didn't even understand what the argument was about. I've seen that with a good number of theistic arguments, in particular this one.
Now, I've also seen theists messing up and grossly misunderstanding the philosopher they're quoting in support of their argument, so that happens too, but I'm more inclined to trying to prevent the former.

 

[skepticalbip]

I seriously doubt (and have not seen) that theists, in general, argue from any "deep" philosophical position.

And I have seen many theists destroy many atheists in online debates, while the atheists never even understood - and in nearly all cases, almost certainly never will understand - that they had lost the argument, let alone that they had lost by a mile - or more like a light year -, and in fact, they didn't even understand what the argument was about. I've seen that with a good number of theistic arguments, in particular this one.
Now, I've also seen theists messing up and grossly misunderstanding the philosopher they're quoting in support of their argument, so that happens too, but I'm more inclined to trying to prevent the former.

You didn't respond to the post. You only responded to half of the introduction. The post was:

Even if they did argue philosophically, your explanation of their basis is piss poor philosophy. It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god. Their second premise would have to be that all "true morals" come from this god. Both are assuming the conclusion that any supposed moral beliefs from any other source are not "true morals".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Even if they did argue philosophically, your explanation of their basis is piss poor philosophy. It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god. Their second premise would have to be that all "true morals" come from this god. Both are assuming the conclusion that any supposed moral beliefs from any other source are not "true morals".

First, my explanation is true (i.e., it accurately describes it). If their philosophy is piss poor philosophy, whatever. It's their problem.
Second, I don't know what you mean by "a god", but the conclusion is that God exists, in one of the senses of "God" I have described.
Third, the formal argument is something like:
1. If God did not exist, then everything would be morally permissible.
2. It's not the case that everything is morally permissible.
C. God exists.

Then they give arguments (in the sense of "arguing a case", not in the sense of a formal argument) in support of the premises.
Those are really bad arguments, so it's bad philosophy of course, but I don't see how your argument establishes that.
Still, I didn't and don't want to debate with you. I wanted to explain the argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Even if they did argue philosophically, your explanation of their basis is piss poor philosophy. It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god. Their second premise would have to be that all "true morals" come from this god. Both are assuming the conclusion that any supposed moral beliefs from any other source are not "true morals".

First, my explanation is true (i.e., it accurately describes it). If their philosophy is piss poor philosophy, whatever. It's their problem.
Second, I don't know what you mean by "a god", but the conclusion is that God exists, in one of the senses of "God" I have described.
Third, the formal argument is something like:
1. If God did not exist, then everything would be morally permissible.
2. It's not the case that everything is morally permissible.
C. God exists.

Then they give arguments (in the sense of "arguing a case", not in the sense of a formal argument) in support of the premises.
Those are really bad arguments, so it's bad philosophy of course, but I don't see how your argument establishes that.
Still, I didn't and don't want to debate with you. I wanted to explain the argument.

As I said earlier, and you ignored, their argument is equivalent to:

Only god can make a banana.
There are bananas.
Therefore god.

And yet you claim that they are winning debates with this nonsense. This makes me question your qualifications to judge a winner in such a debate.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I said earlier and you ignored their argument is equivalent to:

Only god can make a banana.
There are bananas.
Therefore god.

And yet you claim that they are winning debates with this nonsense.

First, as I told you repeatedly, I didn't want to argue with you. Why are you picking a fight?
Second, I already addressed an argument you told me I hadn't addressed, and which of course I hadn't addressed because I was not interested in that, but in explaining their argument.
Third, I explained why they win the debates. They win because their atheist opponents keep misrepresenting their arguments, and the theists in question reply by telling them that they don't even understand, and then the atheists keep replying and arguing against what they believe the theists are saying but aren't, and then the theists keep pointing out how the atheists in question keep attacking strawmen, etc. Well, that and the metaethical and sometimes ethical mistakes that the atheists in question keep making and the theists keep highlighting. The theists of course are making a terrible argument and also keep making metaethical mistakes, but their atheists opponents fail to point that out, because they fail to see what the mistakes are, because they don't even understand what the theists are saying. That's partly the fault of some theist philosophers due to their obscurity, but it's also the fault of atheists who just keep misreading repeatedly.
Fourth, again, the meat of the argument is not the formal argument; it's the argument in the sense of arguing the case; it's the arguments given in support of the premises.
For that matter, you could say the following argument is also equivalent.
1. If God did exist, then there would be no instances of rape for fun or power.
2. There are instances of rape for fun or power.
C. It is not the case that God exists.

But that's not equivalent in any relevant sense (yes, the formal argument has the same basic form; so what? Are you against simple syllogisms?).
The issue is what reasons can be given in support of the premises. The reasons theists give in support of their premises are different from the reasons they give in support of the claim that nothing can exist without God, so their metaethical argument is independent from the argument from contingency.
Yes, it's still a really bad argument of course. But you're attacking it the wrong way. And again, why do you want to debate with me? I'm not defending that really bad argument, and I told you repeatedly that I didn't want to debate you. This is impolite.

Look, you want some theists who would defend the argument?
You can go find them at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/moral-argument/
However, if Wade Tisthammer is still posting there, you should avoid engagement or radically improve your game (compared to what you've been doing so far in this thread).
Also, I cannot guarantee there won't be similar philosophically inclined theists, so it would be at your peril.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said earlier and you ignored their argument is equivalent to:

Only god can make a banana.
There are bananas.
Therefore god.

And yet you claim that they are winning debates with this nonsense.

First, as I told you repeatedly, I didn't want to argue with you. Why are you picking a fight?
Second, I already addressed an argument you told me I hadn't addressed, and which of course I hadn't addressed because I was not interested in that, but in explaining their argument.
Third, I explained why they win the debates. They win because their atheist opponents keep misrepresenting their arguments, and the theists in question reply by telling them that they don't even understand, and then the atheists keep replying and arguing against what they believe the theists are saying but aren't, and then the theists keep pointing out how the atheists in question keep attacking strawmen, etc. Well, that and the metaethical and sometimes ethical mistakes that the atheists in question keep making and the theists keep highlighting. The theists of course are making a terrible argument and also keep making metaethical mistakes, but their atheists opponents fail to point that out, because they fail to see what the mistakes are, because they don't even understand what the theists are saying. That's partly the fault of some theist philosophers due to their obscurity, but it's also the fault of atheists who just keep misreading repeatedly.
Fourth, again, the meat of the argument is not the formal argument; it's the argument in the sense of arguing the case; it's the arguments given in support of the premises.
For that matter, you could say the following argument is also equivalent.
1. If God did exist, then there would be no instances of rape for fun or power.
2. There are instances of rape for fun or power.
C. It is not the case that God exists.

But that's not equivalent in any relevant sense (yes, the formal argument has the same basic form; so what? Are you against simple syllogisms?).
The issue is what reasons can be given in support of the premises. The reasons theists give in support of their premises are different from the reasons they give in support of the claim that nothing can exist without God, so their metaethical argument is independent from the argument from contingency.
Yes, it's still a really bad argument of course. But you're attacking it the wrong way. And again, why do you want to debate with me? I'm not defending that really bad argument, and I told you repeatedly that I didn't want to debate you. This is impolite.

Look, you want some theists who would defend the argument?
You can go find them at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/moral-argument/
However, if Wade Tisthammer is still posting there, you should avoid engagement or radically improve your game (compared to what you've been doing so far in this thread).
Also, I cannot guarantee there won't be similar philosophically inclined theists, so it would be at your peril.

I am not debating their argument specifically. As I said in the post you are responding to and you clipped out:

This makes me question your qualifications to judge a winner in such a debate.

For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises. Otherwise there is no argument, only two people stating their different beliefs. The fact that you don't think agreement on the truth of the premises is necessary makes me question your qualifications to declare a victor.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I said in the post you are responding to and you clipped out:

This makes me question your qualifications to judge a winner in such a debate.

First, no, you didn't say that in the post, and I didn't clip it out because you didn't say it in the post I was replying to in the first place, and which I received by email.

Given that it's now in the post and there is no record of editing, I conclude you added it later, but quickly.

Second, no, it does not make you question my qualifications. You choose to do it. I'm not going to bother with this - it's not worth the stress. I was already leaving the PD forum for the foreseeable future - not worth the stress. either -, but I see it's in my interest to add EoG. Trying to help here is too costly.

For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises. Otherwise there is no argument, only two people stating their different beliefs. The fact that you don't think agreement on the truth of the premises is necessary makes me question your qualifications to declare a victor.

First, I didn't say I disagreed with the claim that agreement on the truth of the premises is necessary.
Rather, you claimed "It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god.", and I said what I did say. But there is no premise "there is a god". You got that wrong too.

Second, well, obviously, when there is philosophical debate in an argument like that, it's about whether one or both premises are true; it's obvious that the argument is valid (well, to those who understand at least that).
Those theists who defend the argument argue (in the sense of "arguing a case") in support of the truth of the premises, and those who disagree with them argue against one or both, or argue they're not epistemically justified, etc. (well, those who realize what the argument is about; the rest, who knows? It depends on the case).

Obviously, in order to succeed in persuading other people, theists attempt to persuade that person of the truth of the premises, which is as I explained what they try to do.

If by "For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises." you mean that they have to agree beforehand (i.e., before any discussion), then I obviously disagree with that false claim (even if we're talking about rational debaters).
If by "For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises." you mean something else, then whatever, I have already explained what they try to do. They argue in support of the premises. And whatever you're charging me with, is neither true nor justified.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I said in the post you are responding to and you clipped out:

First, no, you didn't say that in the post, and I didn't clip it out because you didn't say it in the post I was replying to in the first place, and which I received by email.

Given that it's now in the post and there is no record of editing, I conclude you added it later, but quickly.

Second, no, it does not make you question my qualifications. You choose to do it. I'm not going to bother with this - it's not worth the stress. I was already leaving the PD forum for the foreseeable future - not worth the stress. either -, but I see it's in my interest to add EoG. Trying to help here is too costly.

For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises. Otherwise there is no argument, only two people stating their different beliefs. The fact that you don't think agreement on the truth of the premises is necessary makes me question your qualifications to declare a victor.

First, I didn't say I disagreed with the claim that agreement on the truth of the premises is necessary.
Rather, you claimed "It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god.", and I said what I did say. But there is no premise "there is a god". You got that wrong too.

Second, well, obviously, when there is philosophical debate in an argument like that, it's about whether one or both premises are true; it's obvious that the argument is valid (well, to those who understand at least that).
Those theists who defend the argument argue (in the sense of "arguing a case") in support of the truth of the premises, and those who disagree with them argue against one or both, or argue they're not epistemically justified, etc. (well, those who realize what the argument is about; the rest, who knows? It depends on the case).

Obviously, in order to succeed in persuading other people, theists attempt to persuade that person of the truth of the premises, which is as I explained what they try to do.

If by "For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises." you mean that they have to agree beforehand (i.e., before any discussion), then I obviously disagree with that false claim (even if we're talking about rational debaters).
If by "For a syllogism to be accepted in a philosophical argument both parties must agree to the truth of the premises." you mean something else, then whatever, I have already explained what they try to do. They argue in support of the premises. And whatever you're charging me with, is neither true nor justified.

Really???

Third, the formal argument is something like:
1. If God did not exist, then everything would be morally permissible.
2. It's not the case that everything is morally permissible.
C. God exists.

The first premise is a twofer that assumes as true the theist's whole side of the argument, both that god exists, ("If God did not exist") and that he is the source of all morality ("then everything would be morally permissible"). This premise obviously wouldn't be accepted as true by anyone arguing against their beliefs on either count though few would reject the second premise. And yet you accept this syllogism as meaningful or maybe even "deep thinking".

Since the first premise wouldn't be accepted as true in any debate, the syllogism is just a statement of belief, not an argument.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Really???

Yes, really. Which one(s) of my true claims are you objecting to, and what's your basis?

The first premise is a twofer that assumes as true the theist's whole side of the argument, both that god exists, ("If God did not exist") and that he is the source of all morality ("then everything would be morally permissible"). This premise obviously wouldn't be accepted as true by anyone arguing against their beliefs on either count though few would reject the second premise. And yet you accept this syllogism as meaningful or maybe even "deep thinking".

The theist argues for the first premise, with bad arguments.
The syllogism is meaningful as long as the words have a meaning. The usual most usual version of this sort argument uses something more ambiguous, and theists often equivocate. But "morally permissible" is surely meaningful.
As for the first premise, often theists write it as "If God does not exist, everything is permissible" (or the most usual version, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist", but when pressed, they clarify that they mean it in the subjunctive way.
As for the claim that "If God did not exist, everything would be permissible" assumes that God exists, I doubt it, but in any event, for that matter, you might as well object to an argument "If God did exist, then there would be no instances of rape for fun or power.", when one argues against the existence of God.
However, the issue of the better formulation of the first premise (whether it's "If God did not exist...", or "If God does not exist...") is beside the point. All of the work is meant to be done by the arguments in support of the premises.

This premise obviously wouldn't be accepted as true by anyone arguing against their beliefs on either count though few would reject the second premise.

Unfortunately, this sort of metaethical argument has conviced people, though it's usually the variant:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C. God exists.

Also, rejecting the second premise seems to be a common strategy among atheists in the usual formulation, and even in the original one under discussion (though it's less common).

And yet you accept this syllogism as meaningful or maybe even "deep thinking".

That suggests you're quoting me. You are not. I've repeatedly said it's a really bad argument.
The syllogism itself is obviously valid, and the premises and conclusion are meaningful (though "God" is rather vague), and in the most usual variant, theists usually equivocate on "objective".
I have already explained in which sense they win the arguments. You should understand that by now, and you should stop misrepresenting my posts.

 

[Juma]

I have already explained in which sense they win the arguments. .

Why dont you refer to an instance of a such "win" so we can judge for ourselves?

 

[ryan]

Is the idea of being in this existence where so much about it is unknown any stranger than a god creating it? I mean how can one possibly feel sure about either side?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why dont you refer to an instance of a such "win" so we can judge for ourselves?

I don't remember the specific instances. Sometimes, I remember the blog or forum, but I have no link. But I was just trying to help prevent that from happening again, at least to the posters here who hadn't understood the theistic claims, not to make a commitment to a debate I've been saying I didn't and don't want. I tried to search for old posts, but it turns out the FRDB archives are not accessible.
Still, if you want so see an example, a prominent one is the Craig vs. Harris debate, in which Harris doesn't seem to even know what he's talking about - assuming he's not deliberately derailing; either way, he loses badly in the end, even if he makes a few (very few) good points.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-t...lity-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris

If you prefer an example of an anonymous atheist, here's one:
http://creation.com/atheism-no-objective-morality

Here's another witness account (i.e., another person who has seen atheists making that sort of mistake over and over again).
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10018

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Juma,

I gave you a couple of examples, but I had to searched from them. Nearly all of the cases I've seen are lost in some old thread who knows where. It's not the sort of thing I'd be inclined to bookmark, and I've not read debates on the metaethical argument (aside from discussion between people with knowledge of philosophy) in years.

However, there is a way you can figure out that this sort of thing is likely to happen (apart from the examples I just gave you), just with evidence from what you can find on line about how many atheists interpret the arguments, and how theists make them.

You can find Craig's argument (for example) in the following links:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-19
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-20
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-21
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s4-22

There are some variants, but that's the basic idea.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There is a current exchange on the matter: theist Wintery Knight attacks and disparages atheists while defending a metaethical argument.
https://winteryknight.com/2016/04/25/can-atheists-help-themselves-to-objective-morality-on-atheism/
Jeffery Jay Lowder responds.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...a-name-for-a-common-but-fallacious-objection/

Interestingly, Jeffery points out that a common misguided atheistic reply is to cite instances of Biblical immorality.

 

[abaddon]

Is the idea of being in this existence where so much about it is unknown any stranger than a god creating it? I mean how can one possibly feel sure about either side?

Yes, reality is much stranger than a god creating it. That's rather the problem with theism. It’s too simple. It’s too “intuitive”. Theism is exactly what you’d expect of anthropomorphizing humans, so it’s extremely predictable, it's much more simple and anthropocentric and intuitive than reality can possibly be.

God is such a clean and easy and straightforward explanation that it's unbelievable. It’s just not weird enough to be true.