Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Skepdick]

P1. It's impossible to derive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

Edit 1: Fix misspelling of "derrive" (now "derive")
Edit 2: Recant on using my own definition of "impossible" and default to Oxford definition.

[Harbal]

Do you have a red square to demonstrate the truth of that?

[Skepdick]

Do you have a red square to demonstrate the truth of that?

It's in my pants. Do you want to see it?

[FlashDangerpants]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.
P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.
C. A source of morality exists that it's NOT natural.

Let the atheist/naturalist apologetics begin.

What does it mean to derrive morals?

• Does inventing them count as deriving them?

• Does hallucinating them count?

What is the logical status of a derrived moral?

• If some moral has been derrived, is it the case that in all possible worlds it would be erroeneous to describe that derrived moral as contested, untrue, innacurate or unintelligible?

• Is it possible to derrive untrue morals from nature but not possible to derrive true ones, or is it just meaningless to use a natural property as an input?

It is perfectly possible to use your P1 and P2 to conclude that the source of morality is collective fiction

[Harbal]

Do you have a red square to demonstrate the truth of that?

It's in my pants. Do you want to see it?

No, I'll wait until it's somewhere else, thank you.

[Skepdick]

It is perfectly possible to use your P1 and P2 to conclude that the source of morality is collective fiction

Of course. And that source perfectly satisfies the definition of being NOT natural.

natural /ˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

It's made by humankind - therefore it's NOT natural.

It's also perfectly consistent with the definition of "supernatural'

supernatural /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)rəl/ adjective attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Collective fiction is beyond scientific understanding and is not subject to the laws of nature therefore it's supernatural.

Sounds like you are agreeing

If you want to modify the definitions of "natural" (to include the human psyche) or "supernatural" (to exclude the human psyche) let us know...

[FlashDangerpants]

Sounds like you are agreeing

Then we are agreed that the clickbait title leads only to an empty argument that represents no problem for atheists and we never even needed to clear up what form of naturalism you referenced.

[Skepdick]

Then we are agreed that the clickbait title leads only to an empty argument that represents no problem for atheists and we never even needed to clear up what form of naturalism you referenced.

That's the standard excuse. Any argument you ignore presents no problem for you.

But the form of naturalism I am referencing is the commonly accepted, dictionary form of naturalism and supernaturalism.

If it's man-made then it's not natural.
If it's beyond science and the laws of nature then it's supernatural.

If you don't like the dictionary definitions - say so.

Are the premises unsound? Is the argument invalid? If it's neither of those things then you are just side-stepping the landmine.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then we are agreed that the clickbait title leads only to an empty argument that represents no problem for atheists and we never even needed to clear up what form of naturalism you referenced.

That's the standard excuse. Any argument you ignore presents no problem for you.

But the form of naturalism I am referencing is the commonly accepted, dictionary form of naturalism and supernaturalism.

If it's man-made then it's not natural.
If it's beyond science and the laws of nature then it's supernatural.

If you don't like the dictionary definitions - say so.

We used the extreme ambiguity of your argument to arrive at a conclusion that fits with moral skepticism. By definition that is not ignoring the argument. The argument just isn't problematic in the way your overblown title promised.

I was just confirming that you weren't referencing moral naturalism, the meta-ethical theory.

[Skepdick]

We used the extreme ambiguity of your argument to arrive at a conclusion that fits with moral skepticism. By definition that is not ignoring the argument. The argument just isn't problematic in the way your overblown title promised.

I was just confirming that you weren't referencing moral naturalism, the meta-ethical theory.

It sounds like you don't understsand how categorical semantics work.

The universal property of every naturalism is that it satisfies whatever it means to be "natural".
And the universal property of every non-naturalism is that it satisfies the contra-positive properties of whatever it means to be "natural"

If you can't satisfy the "naturality" of your morals then they are NOT natural.

So there's no "exteeme ambiguity" anywhere in my categorical statement. But you'd love to invent it.

[Will Bouwman]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

Prove it. And while you're at it, prove this one too:

P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals.

[Skepdick]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

Prove it.

I can't prove that it's possible and I don't know anybody who can; nor anybody who has. Q.E.D

Naturally, this is an argument from ignorance, but that's not a fallacy when the ignorance is factual.

But if you can demonstrate how to do it - by all means, prove me wrong.

P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals

Sure. Murder is wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just bad.

[Skepdick]

Just bad.

That's a moral conclusion.

What are your natural premises from which you have deduced it?

I notice your continued inability (or conscious refusal) to address the soundness; or the validity of the argument.

[Will Bouwman]

P1. It's impossible to derrive morals from nature.

Prove it.

I can't prove that it's possible and I don't know anybody who can; nor anybody who has. Q.E.D

Naturally, this is an argument from ignorance, but that's not a fallacy when the ignorance is factual.

I don't know anyone who has jumped 30ft, nor anyone who can. If you think it follows that doing so is impossible then your ignorance is factual.

But if you can demonstrate how to do it - by all means, prove me wrong.

Same thing really. If you think that because I can't prove you wrong, you are therefore right, you are a blithering idiot.

P2. It's not impossible to derrive morals

Sure. Murder is wrong.

And how did you derive that?