A Moral Argument Against God's Existence

[Pytharchimedes]

No those are not made up they are descerned facts describing the objective mathematical nature of existence.

Well, all of the "laws" I quoted have proven to be false...so what does that say about your "discerned facts describing the nature of our existence"?

If man did not exist, none of the "laws" I quoted would exist either...so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ematical_ideas

[JimL]

Well, all of the "laws" I quoted have proven to be false...so what does that say about your "discerned facts describing the nature of our existence"?

If man did not exist, none of the "laws" I quoted would exist either...so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ematical_ideas

I'm not a mathematician so whatever you posted means nothing to me. If the above have been proven false then they were not laws. The point I was making is that the mathematical laws that define the universe are not false, they are true, and if man did not exist and discover them, then those same laws would still define the universe.

[Pytharchimedes]

If the above have been proven false then they were not laws.

Have you heard of the fallacy of no true Irishman, or was he Scottish? I prefer the Irish, ya know, Jameson, my good buddy, is Irish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[JimL]

Have you heard of the fallacy of no true Irishman, or was he Scottish? I prefer the Irish, ya know, Jameson, my good buddy, is Irish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Poor analogy. There are empirically objectively true mathematical laws, there are no empirically objectively true moral laws. The former are objectively derived, the latter are subjectively created.

[Rational Gaze]

Poor analogy. There are empirically objectively true mathematical laws, there are no empirically objectively true moral laws. The former are objectively derived, the latter are subjectively created.

This claim is question begging, and is also false. Mathematical laws aren't 'empirically true.'

[shunyadragon]

Well, all of the "laws" I quoted have proven to be false...so what does that say about your "discerned facts describing the nature of our existence"?

If man did not exist, none of the "laws" I quoted would exist either...so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ematical_ideas

Not accurate as far as the nature of math, and natural laws. Math evolves as a tool chest for practical applications in the basic and applied sciences based on the philosophy of theorems, hypothesis, and proofs of number systems. It is assumed by sciences that the nature of our physical existence is determined by a set of consistent Natural Laws. Our natural laws developed through science, using math tools and objective methodology, represent an evolving approximation of the underlying physical nature of our existence. Nature has been shown to be fundamentally consistent and predicable over time concerning the scientific methods and philosophy of Methodological Naturalism. This is sufficient basis of trusting the basic sciences as the accepted understanding of the nature of our physical existence. It is also the understanding of the sciences that our knowledge is not always correct, but evolves over time and is increasingly accurate.

On the other hand Theological beliefs concerning the nature of our physical existence have ben notoriously inconsistent and false concerning the nature of our physical existence. Ancient pagan views of science, like those of Lucretius, have been more accurate then Christian claims of knowledge of science in the ancient world.

[shunyadragon]

Corrected post

Well, all of the "laws" I quoted have proven to be false...so what does that say about your "discerned facts describing the nature of our existence"?

If man did not exist, none of the "laws" I quoted would exist either...so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ematical_ideas

Not accurate as far as the nature of math, and natural laws. Math evolves as a tool chest for practical applications in the basic and applied sciences based on the philosophy of theorems, hypothesis, and proofs of number systems. It is assumed by sciences that the nature of our physical existence is determined by a set of consistent Natural Laws. Our natural laws developed through science, using math tools and objective methodology, represent an evolving approximation of the underlying physical nature of our existence. Nature has been shown to be fundamentally consistent and predicable over time concerning the scientific methods and philosophy of Methodological Naturalism. This is sufficient basis of trusting the basic sciences as the accepted understanding of the nature of our physical existence. It is also the understanding of the sciences that our knowledge is not always correct, but evolves over time and is increasingly accurate.

On the other hand Theological beliefs concerning the nature of our physical existence have ben notoriously inconsistent and false. Ancient pagan views of science, like those of Lucretius, have been more accurate then Christian claims of knowledge of science in the ancient world.

[Jichard]

I understand your point, but if God and morality are one and the same thing, in other words if morality is fixed and determined, then morals from our perspective would be objective regardless of whether they are said to be objectified in a God or objective in themselves. The mere fact that morality is fixed and determined, unchanging and unchangeable, is what makes morality objective to us. But again the problem with that is that it negates the very idea of God itself. God would be fixed and determined as well, he would be subject to his own nature, he would be considered good only because he has no power to do otherwise, which in turn would make of him mindless, powerless, and determined by his own nature, and that would do away with the very idea of God and DCT itself.

I'd disagree since something being fixed and unchanging isn't what would make it objective. For example, the statement "God dislikes X" could be fixed and unchanging, but it'd still be subjectively true since it's true in virtue of a mind-dependent attitude. Similarly, one can have objective truths that can change and aren't fixed. For example, it's objectively true that "mammals exist", even though that is a changing true that was once false and is not true. True in virtue of something that is mind-independent, is what makes morality objective, not it being fixed and determined.