Creature flourishing/well being

[Rostos]

I think this is where alot of the confusion is arising in these moral arguments.

Let me start off by defining the word objective. Objective means that something exists or is true regardless of any humans preference, attitude and desire.

On the other hand, subjective means it is dependent on human preference, desire and attitude.

Lets start off from the beginning. Naturalistic theories regarding the origins of life including things like lightning striking a pond, ocean (primordial) to an asteroid landing on earth and life commencing that way.

I am not here to discuss these theories at all, bottom line is, under naturalism, there was no intention for life to start. It just happened. It just is.

Lets assume the lightning bolt theory for the sake if this argument (it really makes no different).

When this happened and it essentially set the wheels in motion for life to begin, purely under naturalism, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong?

Under naturalism, the answer is neither. Nothing right, good, evil or wrong happened. It just happened. It just is..

Then the wheels set off in motion, going from unicellular to multicellular etc etc. When this happened, did anything OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

Now, all the way from fish to humans, OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.


Now, lets just say during this process an asteroid wiped out every damn living thing on the earth, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

Now, as i explained above, if something is objective, it exists regardless of anyone believing in them. That is, they just exist, always did exist and will always exist regardless of humans attitudes towards them.

So consider back to the lightning strike, that would mean for objective moral values and duties to exist, they existed during this time of the lightning strike.

When lightning struck and the wheels set off motion, for humans to eventually arrive, something good happened something right happened. Ie you are comparing this action against a standard.

The question i want answered is, what was such a standard doing existing in a naturalstic world?

You mean to tell me, somehow the universe was expecting this to all happen? Waiting for humans to arrive?

You see, the moral argument form the naturalist, HINGES entirely on the premise of creaturley flourishing.

If i say to you that creatures ought to flourish, this is a command, it comes from a mind/intelligence.

If i say to you that you ought not steal, this command comes from a mind/intelligence.

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.

So, what was such rules/laws/commands doing existing in a universe at the time and before the lightning bolt?

[Wretch]

Nice! 

With God we enjoy free-will, truth, reason, logic, morality, purpose, meaning, destiny.

Absent God, there is nothing but predetermination, pure pitiless indifference, irrationality, death, and oblivion.

[jayceeii]

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.

Unfortunately there is a lower morality derived from self-interest, that fits in squarely with the naturalistic perspective. Nonetheless you are verging on one of the proofs of God, which is to say listing the actual functions of the mind and showing these must be spiritual in origin, and could not have arisen from a mere biochemical entity. Though the proof is straightforward, one finds the mortal minds immensely entangled with greed and unable to detach themselves to consider the proof or make practical use of it to lead a better life. Jesus gave an early form of this proof saying it’s a miracle if body arose from spirit, but a greater miracle if spirit arose from body. Surely He’d have said more, could it have made a difference in history. Even if mortals are won over they’re chained to desire.

[Amoranemix]

Let me start off by defining the word objective. Objective means that something exists or is true regardless of any humans preference, attitude and desire.

Everything that is being communicated about is subjective, because language is conventional. People decide what the defintion of a circle is and what to call it. However, after getting past definition and nomenclature, something can I believe be truely objective.
I also don't like that your definition requieres something to exist in order to be objective. It should also be allowed not to exist independent of anyone's opinion.

When this happened and it essentially set the wheels in motion for life to begin, purely under naturalism, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong?

Define good, evil, right and wrong.
Let us define good as whatever promotes human flourishing. Feel free to come up with a better defintion.

Under naturalism, the answer is neither. Nothing right, good, evil or wrong happened. It just happened. It just is..

Under naturalism nothing would promote human flourishing ? You are too pessimistic.

Then the wheels set off in motion, going from unicellular to multicellular etc etc. When this happened, did anything OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

The process promoted human flourishing and hence was good. It also took place (and hence existed) independent of anyone's opinion. The other steps you described were also objectively good.

Now, lets just say during this process an asteroid wiped out every damn living thing on the earth, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

That looks bad for human flourishing.

Now, as i explained above, if something is objective, it exists regardless of anyone believing in them. That is, they just exist, always did exist and will always exist regardless of humans attitudes towards them.

Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

So consider back to the lightning strike, that would mean for objective moral values and duties to exist, they existed during this time of the lightning strike.

What is a moral value ?
I shall assume a moral value to be a claim that logically follows from a moral standard. Feel free to provide a better defintion.
What does it mean for a claim to exist ?
I shall assume it means it is being used/relied on. Feel free to provide a better definition.
Your conclusion that objective moral values existed long ago seems to derive from your assumption that if something objective exists, it has always existed. I shall await your proof of that.

When lightning struck and the wheels set off motion, for humans to eventually arrive, something good happened something right happened. Ie you are comparing this action against a standard.

A standard that may exist today, but has not always existed.

The question i want answered is, what was such a standard doing existing in a naturalstic world?

You have yet to prove that such a standard was existing.

You mean to tell me, somehow the universe was expecting this to all happen? Waiting for humans to arrive?

No.

You see, the moral argument form the naturalist, HINGES entirely on the premise of creaturley flourishing.

What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?

If i say to you that creatures ought to flourish, this is a command, it comes from a mind/intelligence.
If i say to you that you ought not steal, this command comes from a mind/intelligence.

The first seems to express more an opinion than a command, but I mostly agree.

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.
So, what was such rules/laws/commands doing existing in a universe at the time and before the lightning bolt?

They weren't existing, obviously. Has anyone claimed they did ?

With God we enjoy free-will, truth, reason, logic, morality, purpose, meaning, destiny.
Absent God, there is nothing but predetermination, pure pitiless indifference, irrationality, death, and oblivion.

Because we are fond of the nirvana fallacy, we believe in God. At least, some of us do.

Unfortunately there is a lower morality derived from self-interest, that fits in squarely with the naturalistic perspective. Nonetheless you [Rostos] are verging on one of the proofs of God, which is to say listing the actual functions of the mind and showing these must be spiritual in origin, and could not have arisen from a mere biochemical entity.

One cannot be on the verge of what does not exist.

[Rostos]

Let me start off by defining the word objective. Objective means that something exists or is true regardless of any humans preference, attitude and desire.

Everything that is being communicated about is subjective, because language is conventional. People decide what the defintion of a circle is and what to call it. However, after getting past definition and nomenclature, something can I believe be truely objective.
I also don't like that your definition requieres something to exist in order to be objective. It should also be allowed not to exist independent of anyone's opinion.

When this happened and it essentially set the wheels in motion for life to begin, purely under naturalism, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong?

Define good, evil, right and wrong.
Let us define good as whatever promotes human flourishing. Feel free to come up with a better defintion.

Under naturalism, the answer is neither. Nothing right, good, evil or wrong happened. It just happened. It just is..

Under naturalism nothing would promote human flourishing ? You are too pessimistic.

Then the wheels set off in motion, going from unicellular to multicellular etc etc. When this happened, did anything OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

The process promoted human flourishing and hence was good. It also took place (and hence existed) independent of anyone's opinion. The other steps you described were also objectively good.

Now, lets just say during this process an asteroid wiped out every damn living thing on the earth, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong? No. It just happened.

That looks bad for human flourishing.

Now, as i explained above, if something is objective, it exists regardless of anyone believing in them. That is, they just exist, always did exist and will always exist regardless of humans attitudes towards them.

Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

So consider back to the lightning strike, that would mean for objective moral values and duties to exist, they existed during this time of the lightning strike.

What is a moral value ?
I shall assume a moral value to be a claim that logically follows from a moral standard. Feel free to provide a better defintion.
What does it mean for a claim to exist ?
I shall assume it means it is being used/relied on. Feel free to provide a better definition.
Your conclusion that objective moral values existed long ago seems to derive from your assumption that if something objective exists, it has always existed. I shall await your proof of that.

When lightning struck and the wheels set off motion, for humans to eventually arrive, something good happened something right happened. Ie you are comparing this action against a standard.

A standard that may exist today, but has not always existed.

The question i want answered is, what was such a standard doing existing in a naturalstic world?

You have yet to prove that such a standard was existing.

You mean to tell me, somehow the universe was expecting this to all happen? Waiting for humans to arrive?

No.

You see, the moral argument form the naturalist, HINGES entirely on the premise of creaturley flourishing.

What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?

If i say to you that creatures ought to flourish, this is a command, it comes from a mind/intelligence.
If i say to you that you ought not steal, this command comes from a mind/intelligence.

The first seems to express more an opinion than a command, but I mostly agree.

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.
So, what was such rules/laws/commands doing existing in a universe at the time and before the lightning bolt?

They weren't existing, obviously. Has anyone claimed they did ?

With God we enjoy free-will, truth, reason, logic, morality, purpose, meaning, destiny.
Absent God, there is nothing but predetermination, pure pitiless indifference, irrationality, death, and oblivion.

Because we are fond of the nirvana fallacy, we believe in God. At least, some of us do.

Unfortunately there is a lower morality derived from self-interest, that fits in squarely with the naturalistic perspective. Nonetheless you [Rostos] are verging on one of the proofs of God, which is to say listing the actual functions of the mind and showing these must be spiritual in origin, and could not have arisen from a mere biochemical entity.

One cannot be on the verge of what does not exist.

"Let us define good as whatever promotes human flourishing. Feel free to come up with a better defintion."

Your whole argument and defense is built around a faulty assumption that human flourishing is good/right.

If there is no better definition, which there is, does not make your premise any more true.

If humans or any species like and want to survive and flourish, that does not make it right or even good when they do survive and flourish.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive or surviving is right or good.

To say so under naturalism is nothing more than a man made construct which has no grounding in reality.

It certainly does not make it objectively true/right/good.

Essentially,  as it has no grounding in reality, everything else collapses.

Under naturalism, whether humans or any species survive and flourish or get wiped out and suffering is maximised in the process is neither right, wrong or good or evil.

Even Richard Dawkins admits this.

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

[Amoranemix]

Define good, evil, right and wrong.

[no response]

Christians want to believe in God. Clear defintions provide clarity. Clarity leads to truth. The truth is that God doesn't exist. Hence, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.

"Let us define good as whatever promotes human flourishing. Feel free to come up with a better defintion."
Your whole argument and defense is built around a faulty assumption that human flourishing is good/right.

You are mistaken. That is not an assumption, but a definition. Then I assumed you used that defintion. Lacking any altnernative definition, I will keep assuming that. Since I prefer to believe in reality over God, I try to be clear.
Assuming human flourishing to be good/right would assume some other defintion for good/right. However, no such defintion has been provided.

If there is no better definition, which there is, does not make your premise any more true.

I am sure there is better definition. We both know why you are not providing it.
What premise are you talking about ?

If humans or any species like and want to survive and flourish, that does not make it right or even good when they do survive and flourish.

Agreed. Wanting human flourishing does not necessarily promote it.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive or surviving is right or good.[1]
To say so under naturalism is nothing more than a man made construct which has no grounding in reality.[2]
It certainly does not make it objectively true/right/good.[3]
Essentially, as it has no grounding in reality, everything else collapses.[4]

[1] Agreed.
[2] I am not aware of anyone saying so under naturalism.
[3] How about you address the position I actually hold in stead of the one you want me to hold ?
[4] Naturalism has no grounding in reality ? What does that mean ?

Under naturalism, whether humans or any species survive and flourish or get wiped out and suffering is maximised in the process is neither right, wrong or good or evil.[5]
Even Richard Dawkins admits this.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."[6]

[5] You are mistaken. Under naturalism, and under anything else too, that which promotes human flourishing is by definition good. As human flourishing promotes more human flourishing, it is therefore good.
[6] You have committed an equivocation fallacy, for it is unlikely Richard Dawkins used the same definition for good as I did.

Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

In essence, you wanted me to make a particular argument that you knew how to easily challenge, so you assumed I did and failed to address my actual arguments, objections and and questions. That fallacy is known as the straw man.

[Rostos]

Define good, evil, right and wrong.

[no response]

Christians want to believe in God. Clear defintions provide clarity. Clarity leads to truth. The truth is that God doesn't exist. Hence, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.

"Let us define good as whatever promotes human flourishing. Feel free to come up with a better defintion."
Your whole argument and defense is built around a faulty assumption that human flourishing is good/right.

You are mistaken. That is not an assumption, but a definition. Then I assumed you used that defintion. Lacking any altnernative definition, I will keep assuming that. Since I prefer to believe in reality over God, I try to be clear.
Assuming human flourishing to be good/right would assume some other defintion for good/right. However, no such defintion has been provided.

If there is no better definition, which there is, does not make your premise any more true.

I am sure there is better definition. We both know why you are not providing it.
What premise are you talking about ?

If humans or any species like and want to survive and flourish, that does not make it right or even good when they do survive and flourish.

Agreed. Wanting human flourishing does not necessarily promote it.

Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive or surviving is right or good.[1]
To say so under naturalism is nothing more than a man made construct which has no grounding in reality.[2]
It certainly does not make it objectively true/right/good.[3]
Essentially, as it has no grounding in reality, everything else collapses.[4]

[1] Agreed.
[2] I am not aware of anyone saying so under naturalism.
[3] How about you address the position I actually hold in stead of the one you want me to hold ?
[4] Naturalism has no grounding in reality ? What does that mean ?

Under naturalism, whether humans or any species survive and flourish or get wiped out and suffering is maximised in the process is neither right, wrong or good or evil.[5]
Even Richard Dawkins admits this.
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."[6]

[5] You are mistaken. Under naturalism, and under anything else too, that which promotes human flourishing is by definition good. As human flourishing promotes more human flourishing, it is therefore good.
[6] You have committed an equivocation fallacy, for it is unlikely Richard Dawkins used the same definition for good as I did.

Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

In essence, you wanted me to make a particular argument that you knew how to easily challenge, so you assumed I did and failed to address my actual arguments, objections and and questions. That fallacy is known as the straw man.

"Christians want to believe in God. Clear defintions provide clarity. Clarity leads to truth. The truth is that God doesn't exist. Hence, Christians avoid providing clear definitions."

Just assertions on your behalf.
How do you know what Christians WANT to believe? Have you psychoanalysed all Christians?
"God does not exist". A claim to knowledge on your behalf. Please provide proof for your claim to knowledge. Otherwise, just another assertion.

"You are mistaken. That is not an assumption, but a definition. Then I assumed you used that defintion. Lacking any altnernative definition, I will keep assuming that. Since I prefer to believe in reality over God, I try to be clear.
Assuming human flourishing to be good/right would assume some other defintion for good/right. However, no such defintion has been provided."

Why is human flourishing good or right under naturalism? A definition? Nothing more than a man made definition which is no more right or wrong than another person who says it is not good. Person A says flourishing is good, person B says it is not good. Who is right or wrong?  Who is the arbiter?
The majority? Ad Populum fallacy.

"I am sure there is better definition. We both know why you are not providing it.
What premise are you talking about ?"

Under Christian Theism, good /right has nothing to do with flourishing, but from Gods nature.

" Naturalism has no grounding in reality ? What does that mean "

Naturalism cannot ground MORALITY.

" You are mistaken. Under naturalism, and under anything else too, that which promotes human flourishing is by definition good. As human flourishing promotes more human flourishing, it is therefore good."

Again, just a man made definition which of morality which cannot be grounded. You have assumed a goal and any acts that do not result in the end goal are deemed wrong or evil.
Morality under naturalism is no different to a sport.
Consider baseball, when a batter swings and misses at a ball 3 times he is struck out. However, such rules are no more right or wrong than another group who have deemed that you get to swing and miss 4 times before it is a strike out.
Just a collection of man made rules and laws that are no more right or wrong than another set of man made rules or laws.

"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"

Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones opinion of it. Ie, a FACT.
Under naturalism, morality is merely a societal construct to achieve a particular outcome. But that does not make them true or factual/objective.

"What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?"
There are several theories, but none of them can be grounded.

[Amoranemix]

"Christians want to believe in God. Clear defintions provide clarity. Clarity leads to truth. The truth is that God doesn't exist. Hence, Christians avoid providing clear definitions."
Just assertions on your behalf.[1]
How do you know what Christians WANT to believe?[2] Have you psychoanalysed all Christians?[3]
"God does not exist". A claim to knowledge on your behalf. Please provide proof for your claim to knowledge. Otherwise, just another assertion.[4]

[1] It is more a hypothesis or theory supported by personal experience. It is not the individual propositions that matter. Do you have a better explanation for the Christian aversion for clear definitions ?
[2] Knowing is a big word, but I when starting Christian apologetics I tried to answer is why otherwise intelligent people can believe in God. One aspect is their desire to believe in God.
[3] Of course not. But you seemed to fit the bill. You could have been truely outraged and produced a list of impressively clear defintions in response, but you know better. Christians aren't stupid.
[4] Like I said, it is theory supported by prior evidence and that you supported in your posts so far. It is actually a simplification. God's (non-)existence is irrelevant. What matters is that there is no rational justification for belief in his existence. Deep down Christians suspect that. They are not stupid.

"You are mistaken. That is not an assumption, but a definition. Then I assumed you used that defintion. Lacking any altnernative definition, I will keep assuming that. Since I prefer to believe in reality over God, I try to be clear.
Assuming human flourishing to be good/right would assume some other defintion for good/right. However, no such defintion has been provided.”
Why is human flourishing good or right under naturalism?[5] A definition? Nothing more than a man made definition which is no more right or wrong than another person who says it is not good.[6] Person A says flourishing is good, person B says it is not good. Who is right or wrong?[7] Who is the arbiter?[8]
The majority? Ad Populum fallacy.

[5] Why a assumes a motive or purpose. There is none.
[6] So what ? Definitions aren't supposed to be right or wrong. You dislike man-made definitions ? Do you know of any non-man-made ones ?
[7] With the definition for good I have provided, A would be right and B wrong, as I explained in my previous post.
[8] Is there an arbiter ?

"I am sure there is better definition. We both know why you are not providing it.
What premise are you talking about ?"
Under Christian Theism, good /right has nothing to do with flourishing, but from Gods nature.

Understandably, you keep refusing to provide a clear definition. You do however give a direction to take. You hint at the following definition :
Good is any behaviour that is in accordance with God's nature.

One can define other concepts, like right, evil, immoral in analogous ways.
Obviously, I find that a bad definition among other reasons because almost no one who disbelieves in God uses it.

Let us see how well your criticism of naturalism holds up with that definition.

When this happened and it essentially set the wheels in motion for life to begin, purely under naturalism, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong?
Under naturalism, the answer is neither. Nothing right, good, evil or wrong happened. It just happened. It just is..

Under naturalism God doesn't exist. Hence he would have no nature. Hence, nothing can be in accordance with it.

The other events you describe would with the God-based definition also be amoral under naturalism.

So consider back to the lightning strike, that would mean for objective moral values and duties to exist, they existed during this time of the lightning strike.

Under naturalism, with God-based definitions for moral terms, they would not exist and never have existed. That shows those would be bad definitions under naturalism.

When lightning struck and the wheels set off motion, for humans to eventually arrive, something good happened something right happened. Ie you are comparing this action against a standard.

Now you are assuming theism. It is possible that human flourishing is in accordance with God's nature.

The question i want answered is, what was such a standard doing existing in a naturalstic world?

You have yet to prove that such a standard was existing.

You mean to tell me, somehow the universe was expecting this to all happen? Waiting for humans to arrive?

No.

You see, the moral argument form the naturalist, HINGES entirely on the premise of creaturley flourishing.

Since you refused to provide such an argument, it is hard to dispute and appears irrelevant.

If i say to you that creatures ought to flourish, this is a command, it comes from a mind/intelligence.
If i say to you that you ought not steal, this command comes from a mind/intelligence.

The first seems to express more an opinion than a command, but I mostly agree.

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.
So, what was such rules/laws/commands doing existing in a universe at the time and before the lightning bolt?

They weren't existing, obviously. Has anyone claimed they did ?

It turns out you actually didn't criticize naturalism. Your questions do however suggest that you believe that God's nature exists under naturalism. I hope now you see the error of your ways.

" Naturalism has no grounding in reality ? What does that mean "
Naturalism cannot ground MORALITY.

Has anyone claimed otherwise ?

" You are mistaken. Under naturalism, and under anything else too, that which promotes human flourishing is by definition good. As human flourishing promotes more human flourishing, it is therefore good."
Again, just a man made definition which of morality which cannot be grounded.[9] You have assumed a goal and any acts that do not result in the end goal are deemed wrong or evil.[10]

[9] Feel free to present your superior, non-man-made definition.
[10] You are mistaken again. I have assumed no particular goal. I have merely assumed a particular definition. I understand you would have preferred me to make such assumption, but as it is, you keep committing a straw man fallacy.

Morality under naturalism is no different to a sport.
Consider baseball, when a batter swings and misses at a ball 3 times he is struck out. However, such rules are no more right or wrong than another group who have deemed that you get to swing and miss 4 times before it is a strike out.
Just a collection of man made rules and laws that are no more right or wrong than another set of man made rules or laws.

No different than a sport is exaggerated. There are similarities, but there are also differences. Your exposé suggests that you dislike naturalism. Is that why you reject it ? Naturalism is inconvenient. It would be better if God existed and created some sort of ultimate moralilty we all have to abide by. Wouldn't that be great ? Therefore God exists.
That fallacy is know as the nirvana fallacy.

"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"
Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones opinion of it. Ie, a FACT.
Under naturalism, morality is merely a societal construct to achieve a particular outcome. But that does not make them true or factual/objective.

You still haven't answered my questions.

"What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?"
There are several theories, but none of them can be grounded.

So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?

The problem is that you assume from me being an atheist that I hold particular beliefs that you have become accustomed to from interactions with atheists, but I do not. I believe in in reality, nothing more.

[Rostos]

"Christians want to believe in God. Clear defintions provide clarity. Clarity leads to truth. The truth is that God doesn't exist. Hence, Christians avoid providing clear definitions."
Just assertions on your behalf.[1]
How do you know what Christians WANT to believe?[2] Have you psychoanalysed all Christians?[3]
"God does not exist". A claim to knowledge on your behalf. Please provide proof for your claim to knowledge. Otherwise, just another assertion.[4]

[1] It is more a hypothesis or theory supported by personal experience. It is not the individual propositions that matter. Do you have a better explanation for the Christian aversion for clear definitions ?
[2] Knowing is a big word, but I when starting Christian apologetics I tried to answer is why otherwise intelligent people can believe in God. One aspect is their desire to believe in God.
[3] Of course not. But you seemed to fit the bill. You could have been truely outraged and produced a list of impressively clear defintions in response, but you know better. Christians aren't stupid.
[4] Like I said, it is theory supported by prior evidence and that you supported in your posts so far. It is actually a simplification. God's (non-)existence is irrelevant. What matters is that there is no rational justification for belief in his existence. Deep down Christians suspect that. They are not stupid.

"You are mistaken. That is not an assumption, but a definition. Then I assumed you used that defintion. Lacking any altnernative definition, I will keep assuming that. Since I prefer to believe in reality over God, I try to be clear.
Assuming human flourishing to be good/right would assume some other defintion for good/right. However, no such defintion has been provided.”
Why is human flourishing good or right under naturalism?[5] A definition? Nothing more than a man made definition which is no more right or wrong than another person who says it is not good.[6] Person A says flourishing is good, person B says it is not good. Who is right or wrong?[7] Who is the arbiter?[8]
The majority? Ad Populum fallacy.

[5] Why a assumes a motive or purpose. There is none.
[6] So what ? Definitions aren't supposed to be right or wrong. You dislike man-made definitions ? Do you know of any non-man-made ones ?
[7] With the definition for good I have provided, A would be right and B wrong, as I explained in my previous post.
[8] Is there an arbiter ?

"I am sure there is better definition. We both know why you are not providing it.
What premise are you talking about ?"
Under Christian Theism, good /right has nothing to do with flourishing, but from Gods nature.

Understandably, you keep refusing to provide a clear definition. You do however give a direction to take. You hint at the following definition :
Good is any behaviour that is in accordance with God's nature.

One can define other concepts, like right, evil, immoral in analogous ways.
Obviously, I find that a bad definition among other reasons because almost no one who disbelieves in God uses it.

Let us see how well your criticism of naturalism holds up with that definition.

When this happened and it essentially set the wheels in motion for life to begin, purely under naturalism, did something OBJECTIVELY good happen? Evil happen? Right happen? Wrong?
Under naturalism, the answer is neither. Nothing right, good, evil or wrong happened. It just happened. It just is..

Under naturalism God doesn't exist. Hence he would have no nature. Hence, nothing can be in accordance with it.

The other events you describe would with the God-based definition also be amoral under naturalism.

So consider back to the lightning strike, that would mean for objective moral values and duties to exist, they existed during this time of the lightning strike.

Under naturalism, with God-based definitions for moral terms, they would not exist and never have existed. That shows those would be bad definitions under naturalism.

When lightning struck and the wheels set off motion, for humans to eventually arrive, something good happened something right happened. Ie you are comparing this action against a standard.

Now you are assuming theism. It is possible that human flourishing is in accordance with God's nature.

The question i want answered is, what was such a standard doing existing in a naturalstic world?

You have yet to prove that such a standard was existing.

You mean to tell me, somehow the universe was expecting this to all happen? Waiting for humans to arrive?

No.

You see, the moral argument form the naturalist, HINGES entirely on the premise of creaturley flourishing.

Since you refused to provide such an argument, it is hard to dispute and appears irrelevant.

If i say to you that creatures ought to flourish, this is a command, it comes from a mind/intelligence.
If i say to you that you ought not steal, this command comes from a mind/intelligence.

The first seems to express more an opinion than a command, but I mostly agree.

Such commands/rules/obligations do not come from non minds.
So, what was such rules/laws/commands doing existing in a universe at the time and before the lightning bolt?

They weren't existing, obviously. Has anyone claimed they did ?

It turns out you actually didn't criticize naturalism. Your questions do however suggest that you believe that God's nature exists under naturalism. I hope now you see the error of your ways.

" Naturalism has no grounding in reality ? What does that mean "
Naturalism cannot ground MORALITY.

Has anyone claimed otherwise ?

" You are mistaken. Under naturalism, and under anything else too, that which promotes human flourishing is by definition good. As human flourishing promotes more human flourishing, it is therefore good."
Again, just a man made definition which of morality which cannot be grounded.[9] You have assumed a goal and any acts that do not result in the end goal are deemed wrong or evil.[10]

[9] Feel free to present your superior, non-man-made definition.
[10] You are mistaken again. I have assumed no particular goal. I have merely assumed a particular definition. I understand you would have preferred me to make such assumption, but as it is, you keep committing a straw man fallacy.

Morality under naturalism is no different to a sport.
Consider baseball, when a batter swings and misses at a ball 3 times he is struck out. However, such rules are no more right or wrong than another group who have deemed that you get to swing and miss 4 times before it is a strike out.
Just a collection of man made rules and laws that are no more right or wrong than another set of man made rules or laws.

No different than a sport is exaggerated. There are similarities, but there are also differences. Your exposé suggests that you dislike naturalism. Is that why you reject it ? Naturalism is inconvenient. It would be better if God existed and created some sort of ultimate moralilty we all have to abide by. Wouldn't that be great ? Therefore God exists.
That fallacy is know as the nirvana fallacy.

"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"
Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones opinion of it. Ie, a FACT.
Under naturalism, morality is merely a societal construct to achieve a particular outcome. But that does not make them true or factual/objective.

You still haven't answered my questions.

"What is the moral argument form the naturalist ?"
There are several theories, but none of them can be grounded.

So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?

The problem is that you assume from me being an atheist that I hold particular beliefs that you have become accustomed to from interactions with atheists, but I do not. I believe in in reality, nothing more.

"[1] It is more a hypothesis or theory supported by personal experience. It is not the individual propositions that matter. Do you have a better explanation for the Christian aversion for clear definitions ?
[2] Knowing is a big word, but I when starting Christian apologetics I tried to answer is why otherwise intelligent people can believe in God. One aspect is their desire to believe in God.
[3] Of course not. But you seemed to fit the bill. You could have been truely outraged and produced a list of impressively clear defintions in response, but you know better. Christians aren't stupid.
[4] Like I said, it is theory supported by prior evidence and that you supported in your posts so far. It is actually a simplification. God's (non-)existence is irrelevant. What matters is that there is no rational justification for belief in his existence. Deep down Christians suspect that. They are not stupid.

1) How does your personal experience mean that it is the same for everyone? What aversions to definitions do you talk about? Please specify.
2) This is no different to accusing atheists to have a desire not to believe in God. What peoples desires are have nothing to do with the truth.
3) Where have i been outraged?
4) There is a stack of evidence. KCA, Teleological argument, Moral argument, Historicity of Jesus Christ.



[5] Why a assumes a motive or purpose. There is none.
[6] So what ? Definitions aren't supposed to be right or wrong. You dislike man-made definitions ? Do you know of any non-man-made ones ?
[7] With the definition for good I have provided, A would be right and B wrong, as I explained in my previous post.
[8] Is there an arbiter ?

5) Motive or purpose?
6) That is the point. A man made definiton, does not make it true/factual.
7) Nonsense. It is no different to a person defining black people as superheroes and then if a person disagrees with that makes them wrong because they have been defined that way.. Just because black people are defined that way, does not make it so in reality now does it?
"a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter"

"Understandably, you keep refusing to provide a clear definition. You do however give a direction to take. You hint at the following definition :
Good is any behaviour that is in accordance with God's nature.

One can define other concepts, like right, evil, immoral in analogous ways.
Obviously, I find that a bad definition among other reasons because almost no one who disbelieves in God uses it"

There is no refusal.
Gods nature is the GOOD and his commands FLOW from his nature.
That is any acts that are committed in accordance with his commands are good/right and any acts that are contrary to his nature are deemed evil/wrong.

"Under naturalism God doesn't exist. Hence he would have no nature. Hence, nothing can be in accordance with it.

The other events you describe would with the God-based definition also be amoral under naturalism."

Under naturalism, that is the point, the natural world is all that exists.

[9] Feel free to present your superior, non-man-made definition.
[10] You are mistaken again. I have assumed no particular goal. I have merely assumed a particular definition. I understand you would have preferred me to make such assumption, but as it is, you keep committing a straw man fallacy.

9) Gods nature is the good and his commands flow from his nature. This is a core Christian belief. That is, good/evil are not man made terms but exist independent of all human and are true regardless of what humans think of them.
10) Of course you have, the goal is creaturely flourishing.

"No different than a sport is exaggerated. There are similarities, but there are also differences. Your exposé suggests that you dislike naturalism. Is that why you reject it ? Naturalism is inconvenient. It would be better if God existed and created some sort of ultimate moralilty we all have to abide by. Wouldn't that be great ? Therefore God exists.
That fallacy is know as the nirvana fallacy."

Where did i say i dislike naturalism? Show me where? Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.
Many atheists have confused with using the words like/dislike/want/desire/prefer/dont want with right and wrong.
What a person likes/wants/prefers does not not make it right.
If people want and have a desire to survive and flourish, it does not mean that they ought to.  Therefore, under naturalism, morality is just a man made construct. Essentially a game where setting in rules and laws to achieve that goal like a game.
Consider baseball again. Society A's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in an anti clockwise direction.
Society B's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in a clockwise direction.
Which society is right or wrong? Well, neither are.
Which is what morality is under naturalism.
Scoeity A has determined it is wrong to harm homosexuals.
Society B (ISIS) has determined it is right to blind fold homosexuals, take them to the top of buildings and throw them off.
Which society is right or wrong?
You say society A is right according to your definition, yet according to society B, there definition is right.
This is why moral relativism is incoherent, because as shown in the above example, 2 contradictory views cannot be right and wrong at the very same time.
It leads to a violation off the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

"You still haven't answered my questions."
Such as?

"So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?

"So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?

WHAT? It is your argument that hinges on creaturely flourishing.

[Amoranemix]

Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :

Good : whatever promotes human flourishing.

1) How does your personal experience mean that it is the same for everyone?[11] What aversions to definitions do you talk about? Please specify.[12]
This is no different to accusing atheists to have a desire not to believe in God.[13] What peoples desires are have nothing to do with the truth.
3) Where have i been outraged?[14]
4) There is a stack of evidence. KCA, Teleological argument, Moral argument, Historicity of Jesus Christ.[15]

[11] It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ?
[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.

That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better.

5) Motive or purpose?[16]
6) That is the point. A man made definiton, does not make it true/factual.[17]
7) Nonsense.[18] It is no different to a person defining black people as superheroes[19] and then if a person disagrees with that makes them wrong because they have been defined that way.[20] Just because black people are defined that way, does not make it so in reality now does it?[21]
"a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter"

[16] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
[17] Oh. I thought you were arguing against naturalism. Your point appears a red herring. This section of the forum ought to be about the moral argument for the existence of God, not about whether man-made definitions are true. It is also a straw man, as it suggests that have claimed otherwise.
[18] I have supported my conclusion with an argument. If you can find a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out.
[19] Of course there is a difference. Your definition for black people would be in most circumstances a bad one, as it is contradictary to how people understand black people, which is in most circumstances a clear enough concept, even when no definition is provided.
[20] You are mistaken. Disagreeing with a definition does not make one wrong.
[21] There are three nebulous concepts (black people, that and so) and an ambiguous verb (make) in your question, so your question is ambiguous, but I suspect that indeed, it doesn't.

There is no refusal.
Gods nature is the GOOD and his commands FLOW from his nature.[22]
That is any acts that are committed in accordance with his commands are good/right and any acts that are contrary to his nature are deemed evil/wrong.

[22] The GOOD has not been defined. We both know why.
Based on our my second definition, it could be defined as follows :

The GOOD the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature.

Your claim then becomes :
'Gods nature is the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature and his commands flow from his nature.'
That does not tell is anything about God's nature and consequently about the GOOD. That leaves plenty of room for ignorance. And since ignorance is God's dwelling, Christians like it.

9) Gods nature is the good and his commands flow from his nature. This is a core Christian belief.[23] That is, good/evil are not man made terms but exist independent of all human and are true regardless of what humans think of them.[24]
10) Of course you have, the goal is creaturely flourishing.[25]

[23] OK, so those are beliefs, not definitions. So you do not provide clear definitions.That makes sense if you want to promote God-belief.
I am still waiting for your superior non-man-made definitions. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time.
[24] You appear to lack understanding of linguistics, which is great for God-belief. I will try to reduce the space available to your god a little :

Language makes use of terms and concepts. A concept is (simplified) a part of reality. Those who use language (humans) label concepts, i.e. give them names, like 'good' and 'evil'. Those who use/make language also decide which parts of reality (the corresponding concepts) those terms refer to. So they give a description of the concept, called a definition. It is the users/makers of the language who decide what term to attribute to what concept, if any. In other words, language is conventional. If there is no agreement, there is no language.

For most real concepts (say a planet) it is clear that they exist without humans defining or labeling anything. But humans decided what constitutes a planet (if it is not round, it is not a planet) and what to call it (a planet). For example, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (all humans) decided that Pluto is not a planet. Hence, Pluto ceased being a planet, just because people decided so.

Hence, if, as you claim, the terms good and evil are not man-made, who made them ? God ? Aliens ? Dolphins ?
The concepts these terms refer to may exist independently of any decision, but humans decided, which parts of reality to label as good and which part as evil. And they did a bad job at it. Hence all the confusion. Hence the delight of the fans of the god-of-the-gaps argument.

[25] The goals I have are irrelevant. The assumptions I have made are. If I have inappropriately assumed human flourishing to be good (in stead of having defined good as that what promotes human flourishing), please point out where I have done so.

Where did i say i dislike naturalism?[26] Show me where? Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.

[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false.

Many atheists have confused with using the words like/dislike/want/desire/prefer/dont want with right and wrong.[27]
What a person likes/wants/prefers does not not make it right.
If people want and have a desire to survive and flourish, it does not mean that they ought to.  Therefore, under naturalism, morality is just a man made construct.[28] Essentially a game where setting in rules and laws to achieve that goal like a game.
Consider baseball again. Society A's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in an anti clockwise direction.
Society B's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in a clockwise direction.
Which society is right or wrong? Well, neither are.
Which is what morality is under naturalism.
Scoeity A has determined it is wrong to harm homosexuals.
Society B (ISIS) has determined it is right to blind fold homosexuals, take them to the top of buildings and throw them off.
Which society is right or wrong?[29]
You say society A is right according to your definition, yet according to society B, there definition is right.[30]
This is why moral relativism is incoherent,[31]
because as shown in the above example, 2 contradictory views cannot be right and wrong at the very same time.[32]
It leads to a violation off the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

[27] No doubt many have. Few people understand morality.
[28] Not so fast. The concept may have existed before, but choosing it and giving that concept a name had to be done by humans. Planets existed before humans were around. Thanks to the IAU planets can also be a source of confusion : Was Pluto a planet before there were humans ?
[29] You asked the same question after your baseball example and you answered it. Why don't you do so now ? Is it that you dislike the answer ?
[30] You are mistaken, for I have not provided definitions for right and wrong. In addition, definitions are neither right nor wrong. Also, presumably societies A and B are using different definitions for those concepts.
[31] I don't see how that follows. You will need to flush out your argument more.
[32] I will assume you meant : “2 contradictory views cannot be right at the very same time.” and with right you mean true/correct.
I doubt moral relativism claims otherwise. Anyway, I see no problem with naturalism, except perhaps its inconvenience. Naturalism doesn't violate the law of non-contradition.

"You still haven't answered my questions."
Such as?

Those from post 3 :
Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

"So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?”
WHAT? It is your argument that hinges on creaturely flourishing.

I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me.

[Rostos]

Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :

Good : whatever promotes human flourishing.

1) How does your personal experience mean that it is the same for everyone?[11] What aversions to definitions do you talk about? Please specify.[12]
This is no different to accusing atheists to have a desire not to believe in God.[13] What peoples desires are have nothing to do with the truth.
3) Where have i been outraged?[14]
4) There is a stack of evidence. KCA, Teleological argument, Moral argument, Historicity of Jesus Christ.[15]

[11] It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ?
[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.

That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better.

5) Motive or purpose?[16]
6) That is the point. A man made definiton, does not make it true/factual.[17]
7) Nonsense.[18] It is no different to a person defining black people as superheroes[19] and then if a person disagrees with that makes them wrong because they have been defined that way.[20] Just because black people are defined that way, does not make it so in reality now does it?[21]
"a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter"

[16] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
[17] Oh. I thought you were arguing against naturalism. Your point appears a red herring. This section of the forum ought to be about the moral argument for the existence of God, not about whether man-made definitions are true. It is also a straw man, as it suggests that have claimed otherwise.
[18] I have supported my conclusion with an argument. If you can find a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out.
[19] Of course there is a difference. Your definition for black people would be in most circumstances a bad one, as it is contradictary to how people understand black people, which is in most circumstances a clear enough concept, even when no definition is provided.
[20] You are mistaken. Disagreeing with a definition does not make one wrong.
[21] There are three nebulous concepts (black people, that and so) and an ambiguous verb (make) in your question, so your question is ambiguous, but I suspect that indeed, it doesn't.

There is no refusal.
Gods nature is the GOOD and his commands FLOW from his nature.[22]
That is any acts that are committed in accordance with his commands are good/right and any acts that are contrary to his nature are deemed evil/wrong.

[22] The GOOD has not been defined. We both know why.
Based on our my second definition, it could be defined as follows :

The GOOD the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature.

Your claim then becomes :
'Gods nature is the set of behaviours that are in accordance with God's nature and his commands flow from his nature.'
That does not tell is anything about God's nature and consequently about the GOOD. That leaves plenty of room for ignorance. And since ignorance is God's dwelling, Christians like it.

9) Gods nature is the good and his commands flow from his nature. This is a core Christian belief.[23] That is, good/evil are not man made terms but exist independent of all human and are true regardless of what humans think of them.[24]
10) Of course you have, the goal is creaturely flourishing.[25]

[23] OK, so those are beliefs, not definitions. So you do not provide clear definitions.That makes sense if you want to promote God-belief.
I am still waiting for your superior non-man-made definitions. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time.
[24] You appear to lack understanding of linguistics, which is great for God-belief. I will try to reduce the space available to your god a little :

Language makes use of terms and concepts. A concept is (simplified) a part of reality. Those who use language (humans) label concepts, i.e. give them names, like 'good' and 'evil'. Those who use/make language also decide which parts of reality (the corresponding concepts) those terms refer to. So they give a description of the concept, called a definition. It is the users/makers of the language who decide what term to attribute to what concept, if any. In other words, language is conventional. If there is no agreement, there is no language.

For most real concepts (say a planet) it is clear that they exist without humans defining or labeling anything. But humans decided what constitutes a planet (if it is not round, it is not a planet) and what to call it (a planet). For example, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (all humans) decided that Pluto is not a planet. Hence, Pluto ceased being a planet, just because people decided so.

Hence, if, as you claim, the terms good and evil are not man-made, who made them ? God ? Aliens ? Dolphins ?
The concepts these terms refer to may exist independently of any decision, but humans decided, which parts of reality to label as good and which part as evil. And they did a bad job at it. Hence all the confusion. Hence the delight of the fans of the god-of-the-gaps argument.

[25] The goals I have are irrelevant. The assumptions I have made are. If I have inappropriately assumed human flourishing to be good (in stead of having defined good as that what promotes human flourishing), please point out where I have done so.

Where did i say i dislike naturalism?[26] Show me where? Under naturalism, it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.

[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false.

Many atheists have confused with using the words like/dislike/want/desire/prefer/dont want with right and wrong.[27]
What a person likes/wants/prefers does not not make it right.
If people want and have a desire to survive and flourish, it does not mean that they ought to.  Therefore, under naturalism, morality is just a man made construct.[28] Essentially a game where setting in rules and laws to achieve that goal like a game.
Consider baseball again. Society A's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in an anti clockwise direction.
Society B's rules are that if you hit the ball you run aroung the bases in a clockwise direction.
Which society is right or wrong? Well, neither are.
Which is what morality is under naturalism.
Scoeity A has determined it is wrong to harm homosexuals.
Society B (ISIS) has determined it is right to blind fold homosexuals, take them to the top of buildings and throw them off.
Which society is right or wrong?[29]
You say society A is right according to your definition, yet according to society B, there definition is right.[30]
This is why moral relativism is incoherent,[31]
because as shown in the above example, 2 contradictory views cannot be right and wrong at the very same time.[32]
It leads to a violation off the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

[27] No doubt many have. Few people understand morality.
[28] Not so fast. The concept may have existed before, but choosing it and giving that concept a name had to be done by humans. Planets existed before humans were around. Thanks to the IAU planets can also be a source of confusion : Was Pluto a planet before there were humans ?
[29] You asked the same question after your baseball example and you answered it. Why don't you do so now ? Is it that you dislike the answer ?
[30] You are mistaken, for I have not provided definitions for right and wrong. In addition, definitions are neither right nor wrong. Also, presumably societies A and B are using different definitions for those concepts.
[31] I don't see how that follows. You will need to flush out your argument more.
[32] I will assume you meant : “2 contradictory views cannot be right at the very same time.” and with right you mean true/correct.
I doubt moral relativism claims otherwise. Anyway, I see no problem with naturalism, except perhaps its inconvenience. Naturalism doesn't violate the law of non-contradition.

"You still haven't answered my questions."
Such as?

Those from post 3 :
Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?

"So, there are theories about what the moral argument form the naturalist is, but none of those theories are grounded. Then you claim that that mysterious argument hinges entirely on the premise of creatures flourishing.
I doubt you can prove that and even if you could, so what ?”
WHAT? It is your argument that hinges on creaturely flourishing.

I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me.

Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :

What is reality? That universes can come into existence from nothing? Life can come from non life? Rationality comes from non rationality?

Good : whatever promotes human flourishing.

Why is human flourishing good/right? Says who? Who made that definition? Why is it anymore right than a definition that states the opposite?
What humans like and want does not make that thing right or good.

11] It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ?
[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.

That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better.

11) So why mention it?
12)No, i do not.
13) I also base my beliefs on evidence.
14) Under naturalism, human flourishing is neither right, wrong, good or evil.
15) Please illustrate where Christians do not provide clear examples.

"That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better."
What you LIKE does not make it right.

"[16] Sorry, but I don't understand your question.
[17] Oh. I thought you were arguing against naturalism. Your point appears a red herring. This section of the forum ought to be about the moral argument for the existence of God, not about whether man-made definitions are true. It is also a straw man, as it suggests that have claimed otherwise.
[18] I have supported my conclusion with an argument. If you can find a flaw in my argument, feel free to point it out.
[19] Of course there is a difference. Your definition for black people would be in most circumstances a bad one, as it is contradictary to how people understand black people, which is in most circumstances a clear enough concept, even when no definition is provided.
[20] You are mistaken. Disagreeing with a definition does not make one wrong.
[21] There are three nebulous concepts (black people, that and so) and an ambiguous verb (make) in your question, so your question is ambiguous, but I suspect that indeed, it doesn't."

16) I dont understand yours either.
17) Man made definitions does not make it true/right.
18)Your argument has a flaw from the very beginning where you equated goodness with flourishing. Please explain why under naturalism flourishing is good without appealing to peoples wants and desires.
19) Are you going to provide a response to my example or shy away from it?
20) A man made definition does not make it right either.
21) Please provide a rebuttal to my example.

[23] OK, so those are beliefs, not definitions. So you do not provide clear definitions.That makes sense if you want to promote God-belief.
I am still waiting for your superior non-man-made definitions. I suspect I will be waiting for a long time.
[24] You appear to lack understanding of linguistics, which is great for God-belief. I will try to reduce the space available to your god a little :

Language makes use of terms and concepts. A concept is (simplified) a part of reality. Those who use language (humans) label concepts, i.e. give them names, like 'good' and 'evil'. Those who use/make language also decide which parts of reality (the corresponding concepts) those terms refer to. So they give a description of the concept, called a definition. It is the users/makers of the language who decide what term to attribute to what concept, if any. In other words, language is conventional. If there is no agreement, there is no language.

For most real concepts (say a planet) it is clear that they exist without humans defining or labeling anything. But humans decided what constitutes a planet (if it is not round, it is not a planet) and what to call it (a planet). For example, in 2006 the International Astronomical Union (all humans) decided that Pluto is not a planet. Hence, Pluto ceased being a planet, just because people decided so.

Hence, if, as you claim, the terms good and evil are not man-made, who made them ? God ? Aliens ? Dolphins ?
The concepts these terms refer to may exist independently of any decision, but humans decided, which parts of reality to label as good and which part as evil. And they did a bad job at it. Hence all the confusion. Hence the delight of the fans of the god-of-the-gaps argument.

[25] The goals I have are irrelevant. The assumptions I have made are. If I have inappropriately assumed human flourishing to be good (in stead of having defined good as that what promotes human flourishing), please point out where I have done so.

24) Under naturalism, the words good and evil are man made and cannot be grounded. Who defines what is good or evil?

25) LOL you already stated the goal is flourishing and now you are saying it is irrelevant?

"[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false."

So if you criticise something you emotionally dont like it?

"[27] No doubt many have. Few people understand morality.
[28] Not so fast. The concept may have existed before, but choosing it and giving that concept a name had to be done by humans. Planets existed before humans were around. Thanks to the IAU planets can also be a source of confusion : Was Pluto a planet before there were humans ?
[29] You asked the same question after your baseball example and you answered it. Why don't you do so now ? Is it that you dislike the answer ?
[30] You are mistaken, for I have not provided definitions for right and wrong. In addition, definitions are neither right nor wrong. Also, presumably societies A and B are using different definitions for those concepts.
[31] I don't see how that follows. You will need to flush out your argument more.
[32] I will assume you meant : “2 contradictory views cannot be right at the very same time.” and with right you mean true/correct.
I doubt moral relativism claims otherwise. Anyway, I see no problem with naturalism, except perhaps its inconvenience. Naturalism doesn't violate the law of non-contradition."

27) Correct
28) Humans describe it. You are attempting to PRESCRIBE it.
29) Show me why one set of rules is more right than the other.
30) Except you did, You have equated right/goodness with flourishing.
31) ??
32) It is not an inconvenience. Please provide a rebuttal to my illustration.

"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"

Why are you twisting my words?
Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones views on it. What does it have to do with it always existing?
The shape of the earth is an objective fact. It is spherical regardless of what anyones views are on it.

"I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me."

Naturalistic views on morality cannot be grounded.

[jayceeii]

If I may interpose a word into this developing debate, perhaps it would be useful if you took a specific example of goodness then wondered whether its origins could be natural. For instance, should the five essentials of life—food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care—be considered an inalienable right? It is clear that worldwide so far it has been decided that this is not a right. Instead the people are expected to compete for jobs and resources, with some inevitably being pushed out onto the street or poverty. It is also clear that there cannot be meaningful friendships between the wealthy and the poor, since this is an unkind thing to do. The standard of goodness that has existed in the world before now is not separable from the standard of the animal kingdom, where each fights for himself and his family.

[Rostos]

Consider 2 societies,

Society A wants their society to advance and flourish. This is what they have defined as being right/good.

Society B wants to eliminate all creatures on the planet including their own and maximise suffering in the process. This is what they have defined as being right/good.

Which society is correct?

Before you answer, consider these:

Society A say that the earth is spherical in shape.

Society B say that the earth is flat.

Which society is right and why?

Most of society A say mangoes taste delicious.

Most of society B say mangoes taste terrible.

Which society is right? Are mangoes delicious or do they taste terrible and why?

[Amoranemix]

“Since there are, now two definitions for good, both provided by me (Christians know better than to provide clear definitions), that could cause confusion. That is great for those who want to believe in God, but I prefer to promote the belief in reality. Hence I declare what definition I will be using, unless otherwise specified :”

What is reality?[33] That universes can come into existence from nothing?[34] Life can come from non life?[35] Rationality comes from non rationality?[36]

[33] I was not aware reality was an ambiguous term. Why don't you look it up in the dictionary ?
[34] I don't know.
[35] That may be true and thus part of reality.
[36] That would depend on what that means.
Do you have a relevant point to make ?

Why is human flourishing good/right?[37] Says who? Who made that definition?[38] Why is it anymore right than a definition that states the opposite?[39]
What humans like and want does not make that thing right or good.

[37] Because it has been defined that way, you silly. Why is a circle round ?
[38] I did, you silly. You ought the read to posts of the people you are debating.
[39] I wouldn't know. Has anyone claimed that it is more right than a definition that states the opposite ?

[11]”It does not.
[12] Christian aversion to clear definitions. I am sure that by now you have noticed that you have yet to provide a clear definitions for ambiguous concepts.
[13] There may be no difference to you, but I base my beliefs on evidence. I have no evidence that atheists desire not to believe in God. Hence, if I were to claime so, I would be lying.
[14] You have not been, but you could have been offended by my theory and have provided clear definitions to undermine it. You didn't. Why might that be ?
[15] The problem with that claim in this context is that it does not provide an explanation for the Christian aversion for clear defintions. Let's see :
Christians have a stack of evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, Christians avoid providing clear definitions.”

11) So why mention it?
12) No, i do not.
13) I also base my beliefs on evidence.
14) Under naturalism, human flourishing is neither right, wrong, good or evil.
15) Please illustrate where Christians do not provide clear examples.

[11] I did not mention that my personal experience means that Christians desire to believe in God means that it is the same for everyone.
[12] Search your posts for clear definitions of ambiguous concepts. How many do you find ? Show your clearest one.
[13] You hide it well.
[14] You have already made that mistake in post 4 and I have already refuted in post 5.
[15] I assume you meant definitions i.s.o. examples. I am unclear on how you expect me to illustrate something that does not happen.

"That is a ridiculous theory. I like mine better."
What you LIKE does not make it right.

Are you actually defending that alternative theory ? Have you no shame ?
As usual, I have never claimed otherswise. However, the reasons why I like it better do make it more likely true than the alternative theory.

16) I dont understand yours either.
17) Man made definitions does not make it true/right.
18)Your argument has a flaw from the very beginning where you equated goodness with flourishing.[18] Please explain why under naturalism flourishing is good without appealing to peoples wants and desires.[18b]
19) Are you going to provide a response to my example or shy away from it?
20) A man made definition does not make it right either.
21) Please provide a rebuttal to my example.

[17] I had no idea, but that is your fault, as you had only told me thrice so far.
[18] What argument exactly are you referring to ? The one you wish I would have made ?
Although equating is the right word, as it could be misunderstood (wich is probably the idea), but basically I did. However, that that is a flaw, has yet to be proven.
[18b] Again, why assumes a purpose or motive. There is none.
The goodness of human flourishing follows from the definition of good, as explained in post 5. One could as simplification of course directly define human flourishing as being good (thereby defining good, not human flourishing).
Explaning stuff to a Christian is tedious. It goes in one eye and out the other.
[19] I had not planned to give an additional response to the 'black people defined as superheros' example, nor shy away from it. What more do you want me to say about it ?
[20] We are now at five and counting. Keep up the good work!
[21] Again ? See [19].

24) Under naturalism, the words good and evil are man made and cannot be grounded.[24a] Who defines what is good or evil?[24b]

[24a] Not entirely. One could for example argue that a volcanic eruption is evil, if it kills people. That evil is not man-made.
[24b] You appear to be asking me to explain reality. From my experience, Christians are only interested in learning about reality when it doesn't hamper God-belief. You appear to be no exception. Obviously God is not deciding what is good and evil, so the explanation would be contrary to your belief and hence be ignored. So, it seems you are asking me to waste my time. Why should I do that ? Moreover, you are not too ashamed to ignore several of my questions and objections.
In addition, you are more likely to remember what you discover yourself. Try answering the following question : Who decides what is a planet or a planetoid ? Then transpose the anwer to your own question.

25) LOL you already stated the goal is flourishing and now you are saying it is irrelevant?

You are mistaken, as usual. I have not said the goal is flourishing and I am not saying it is irrelevant. I was talking about goals that are unrelated to this debate.

"[26] I have not said you have said you disliked naturalism. You expressed dislike by criticizing it. Read your previous posts. Many wannabe God-believers would be happy to conclude from the inconvenience of naturalism that it must be false."

So if you criticise something you emotionally dont like it?

Not necessarily.

27) Correct
28) Humans describe it. You are attempting to PRESCRIBE it.
29) Show me why one set of rules is more right than the other.
30) Except you did, You have equated right/goodness with flourishing.
31) ??
32) It is not an inconvenience.[32a] Please provide a rebuttal to my illustration.[32b]

[28] Can you prove that ? I suspect you are again conflating your desires with reality.
You forgot to answer my question.
[29] Show it yourself. Don't forget to define right beforehand.
You forgot to answer my question. One doesn't need to be rocket scientist to guess why.
[30] I have provided a definition for good, indeed, but not for right or wrong. A problem with right and wrong is that they are homonyms and are thus more likely to cause confusion (the Christian's friend).
[31] You claimed that your example about disagreeing societies demonstrates that moral relativism is incoherent. Prove it.
[32a] Maybe you should clarify to wannabe God-believers that naturalism is not inconvenient.
[32b] Again ? What else do you want me to say about it ?
Maybe you could rephrase your example with the concepts good and evil i.s.o. right and wrong. Evil could be defined as :
whatever hinders human flourishing

If you know better definitions, feel free to provide them.

"Why would something objective always exist ?
Is a tree objective ? Has it always existed ?"

Why are you twisting my words?[33]
Objective means something is true/right regardless of anyones views on it. What does it have to do with it always existing?[34]
The shape of the earth is an objective fact. It is spherical regardless of what anyones views are on it.

[33] I am not aware that I am doing that.
[34] Nothing as far as I know, contrary to what you claimed in the OP.
Rostov : “Now, as i explained above, if something is objective, it exists regardless of anyone believing in them. That is, they just exist, always did exist and will always exist regardless of humans attitudes towards them.”

"I am not aware having made such argument. Please point it out to me."
Naturalistic views on morality cannot be grounded.

Of course, if, contrary to what you claimed, I have not made such argument, it is hard for you to point it out.

If I may interpose a word into this developing debate, perhaps it would be useful if you took a specific example of goodness then wondered whether its origins could be natural. For instance, should the five essentials of life—food, clothing, shelter, medical and dental care—be considered an inalienable right?

“Should”
Do you know that by using that word, you are asking for an opinion ?
With right meaning that what one is not permitted to remove or prevent access to, personally I think that mostly yes, it should be an inalienable right, although there may be exceptions.

Consider 2 societies,
Society A wants their society to advance and flourish. This is what they have defined as being right/good.
Society B wants to eliminate all creatures on the planet including their own and maximise suffering in the process. This is what they have defined as being right/good.
Which society is correct?

According to your description both societies have defined right/good such that it corresponds to what they want. To use your words : they have equated it to what they like. Since they want different things, they use different definitions. However, neither have made a statement. In order to be (in)correct, one needs to make a statement. Lacking information on the statements these societies make, I cannot answer the question.

Society A say that the earth is spherical in shape.
Society B say that the earth is flat.
Which society is right and why?

Flat and spherical are clear enough terms. Both societies make a claim, of which the truth-value can be evaluated. Society A is correct.

Most of society A say mangoes taste delicious.
Most of society B say mangoes taste terrible.
Which society is right? Are mangoes delicious or do they taste terrible and why?

Most likely the people of those societies are sharing their opinions. Opinions are neither true nor false. Your last question is also asking for an opinion. Personally, I like mangoes, but delicious is exaggerated.

[jayceeii]

Consider 2 societies,

Society A wants their society to advance and flourish. This is what they have defined as being right/good.

Society B wants to eliminate all creatures on the planet including their own and maximise suffering in the process. This is what they have defined as being right/good.

Which society is correct?

Before you answer, consider these:

Society A say that the earth is spherical in shape.

Society B say that the earth is flat.

Which society is right and why?

Most of society A say mangoes taste delicious.

Most of society B say mangoes taste terrible.

Which society is right? Are mangoes delicious or do they taste terrible and why?

Rostos,

Possibly this belongs on a new thread. I’d been thinking about writing in support of your contentions here, which have been basically sound, but the debate has been getting rather fragmented. In general you argue for the necessity of a mind, but I’d point out the morality humans have derived so far is inseparable from the self-interest of the animals.

I like this riddle and a challenge. My first response, that you seem to have foreseen, is that if Society A is taken to be the current society, we need to posit a Society C which would truly seek the long-term good of all citizens, rather than merely pretending to do so. However on another reading, Society B could be called the present society, and Society A a true society, which is to say one invoking the many for the common good rather than setting up a battle royale for limited resources by the families, as humans do.

On that reading, Society A is the one that faces all realities, inner and outer. Science says the Earth is spherical in shape and they accept it. Science also says the future generations are real and will require resources of their own, and they accept this too. Such people would understand demanding a car today, means one more tractor that can’t be built in the distant future. There are pleasant ways to travel without cars, but not to do farm labor.

Citing mangoes seems to invoke a quotation by Ramakrishna, that he came to the planet to eat mangoes. The meaning is that the planet is inherently a blissful place, but to dwell blissfully upon it is far from easy. Ramakrishna and other mango-eaters have a bliss from above the senses that nonetheless enables complete detachment from the senses and any desire. This is the true proof that there is a mind, and that this mind is spiritual, the ability to follow principles and motives that seek the universal joy-state, not merely private joys.