Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Iwannaplato]

I've seen Skepdick argue that humans are a natural object and therefore there is no such thing as an artificial human product.

He may well have done that. And I think that makes sense, however given how flexible we are and diverse, we can derive contradictory morals from our natures.
And we sure seem to. So, we might be able to talk about objective morals but the terms now refers to a diverse set of positions and offers no way of reconciling them. So, we'd be in the odd position of having a objective set of morals but no unified universal ones. Not so much help. And I am not sure what this approach would mean when dealing with other species.

Now I see him arguing that morals can't be derived from nature, and following up that moral fictionalism is compatible with his argument that supposedly will piss off Atheists. None of that adds up to a coherent anything.

Well, his last post to me was focused on this natural/artificial split. Now I'm not sure where the whole thing is going. I think the OP, in itself, is peachy. I don't think it 'catches' all naturalists or atheists, but I think it would catch many.

'Derived' can mean too many things. A cake can be derived from eggs flour heat and sugar. In one of his other arguments Skepdick has argued that the conclusion murder is wrong can be derived from the primary premise that murder is wrong and the attendant premise that murder is wrong. I asked at the top of the thread if invention and hallucination can count as deriving, no answer was received.

Well, it seems like those are ruled out now because they are human based creation processes. I didn't realize he was going down the natural/artificial line. (my wording) I thought it was the natural/supernatural contrast. Obviously most naturalists are not going to use supernatural justification openly, but I think many implicitly claim objective morals, even if when cornered they may balk.

I have seen Skepdick complain at length that it's unfair to characterise objectivity in the way you and I normally would and it strikes me as odd to suppose he is arguing against objective morality on the basis of yours and my understanding when in fact he usually argues for it.

Skepdick does not present a unified front. He likes to use positions against themselves. He's not always writing in the first person. So, I don't think a cross thread analysis of Skepdick is useful.

[commonsense]

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.

If it is possible to derive morals from humans, then you must allow that humans are not natural.

[Skepdick]

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.

If it is possible to derive morals from humans, then you must allow that humans are not natural.

That's not up to me. This has already been determined by the Philosopher's favourite authority: the Oxford dictionary.

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

If it has human lineage then it's not natural.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdick does not present a unified front. He likes to use positions against themselves.

That makes his argument in the OP at best a Rorschach test in which you have find a personal interprtetation of intentionally vague premises and then stitch together the inference to suit yourself.

If Skepdick actually wants that heap of shit to be a worthwhile argument he needs to revisit it to at the very least explain a version of derive that works in both premises. But given how often he writes about all philosophers being idiots, and the whole of philosophy being inferior to his computers obsessions, I find it surprising that the question even arises.

[commonsense]

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.

If it is possible to derive morals from humans, then you must allow that humans are not natural.

That's not up to me. This has already been determined by the Philosopher's favourite authority: the Oxford dictionary.

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

If it has human lineage then it's not natural.

Oxford’s wrong. Procreation isn’t the same as what they really meant to say, I.e. not made or caused by human hands, as in not manufactured. A broader, more inclusive list of definitions and synonyms does not include your cherry picked item:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

[Skepdick]

Skepdick does not present a unified front. He likes to use positions against themselves.

That makes his argument in the OP at best a Rorschach test in which you have find a personal interprtetation of intentionally vague premises and then stitch together the inference to suit yourself.

If Skepdick actually wants that heap of shit to be a worthwhile argument he needs to revisit it to at the very least explain a version of derive that works in both premises. But given how often he writes about all philosophers being idiots, and the whole of philosophy being inferior to his computers obsessions, I find it surprising that the question even arises.

Heh, I know this gambit. Vagueness this, ambiguity that, heap of shit, blah blah - it's the usual scrambling for a loop hole. The more I say, the more rope I give you to hang me with. right? Not gonna happen Less is more.

I amusing the standard Oxford definition of "derrive"

derive /dɪˈrʌɪv/ verb obtain something from (a specified source).

Got morals? Of course you do.
Can you answer moral questions? Of course you can.

Which source did you obtain them moral answers from? Nature or not nature?

[Skepdick]

Oxford’s wrong.

Eh?

What's your criteria for determining which dictionary is "right" or "wrong"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdick does not present a unified front. He likes to use positions against themselves.

That makes his argument in the OP at best a Rorschach test in which you have find a personal interprtetation of intentionally vague premises and then stitch together the inference to suit yourself.

If Skepdick actually wants that heap of shit to be a worthwhile argument he needs to revisit it to at the very least explain a version of derive that works in both premises. But given how often he writes about all philosophers being idiots, and the whole of philosophy being inferior to his computers obsessions, I find it surprising that the question even arises.

Heh, I know this gambit. Vagueness this, ambiguity that, heap of shit, blah blah - it's the usual scrambling for a loop hole. The more I say, the more rope I give you to hang me with. right? Not gonna happen Less is more.

You already agreed on page 1 that your 'argument' supports my standard moral skepticism even though I am an atheist and the title of the thread says this is supposed to be a problem argument for me. So why do I need any gambits?

Fix your faulty argument or don't. You wouldn't be the first person here awarding himself medals for dogshit arguments, and as long as Advocate's "There is a true Scotsman" thread exists you have little chance of even being the best example of it.

[Skepdick]

That makes his argument in the OP at best a Rorschach test in which you have find a personal interprtetation of intentionally vague premises and then stitch together the inference to suit yourself.

If Skepdick actually wants that heap of shit to be a worthwhile argument he needs to revisit it to at the very least explain a version of derive that works in both premises. But given how often he writes about all philosophers being idiots, and the whole of philosophy being inferior to his computers obsessions, I find it surprising that the question even arises.

Heh, I know this gambit. Vagueness this, ambiguity that, heap of shit, blah blah - it's the usual scrambling for a loop hole. The more I say, the more rope I give you to hang me with. right? Not gonna happen Less is more.

You already agreed on page 1 that your 'argument' supports my standard moral skepticism even though I am an atheist and the title of the thread says this is supposed to be a problem argument for me. So why do I need any gambits?

Fix your faulty argument or don't. You wouldn't be the first person here awarding himself medals for dogshit arguments, and as long as Advocate's "There is a true Scotsman" thread exists you have little chance of even being the best example of it.

To the best of my understanding of the English language I am using the Oxford definitions of words - if anything's "vague", look it up.

I have no idea what your "standard moral skepticism" amounts to - you are being extremely vague. Are you skeptical about the source of morality (nature ∨ ¬nature) as addressed by P1; or the posibility of morality (possible ∨ ¬possible) as addressed by P2?

If you can't tell me what the "fault" with my argument is there's really nothing I can do about it. Is it unsound; or invalid? Start there - everything else is evasion.

If the argument is not invalid or unsound then atheism has no leg to stand on. The source fo morality is NOT natural!

[Skepdick]

I didn't realize he was going down the natural/artificial line. (my wording) I thought it was the natural/supernatural contrast.

This is the fundamental confusion of philosophers who don't understand how complementary sets work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement_(set_theory)

The natural is a closed set. All natural things go in here.
It's complement is an open set. Everything non-natural goes in here.

The "artificial", and "supernatural" both belong to NON-natural open set.

This is where all misunderstanding seems to happen. People seem to misunderstand the basic definition of what "supernatural" means. They think too big - beyond the universe and into the infinite. That's simply the product of an over-zealous imagination and results in externalizing the supernatural.

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

The inner workings of the human mind are behyond scientific understanding and are not subject to the laws of nature, so they satisfy the definition.

If morals come from the human mind - that's a supernatural source. No need to reach beyond the universe.

[commonsense]

Oxford’s wrong.

Eh?

What's your criteria for determining which dictionary is "right" or "wrong"?

I like mine better. It has more definitions for natural than yours, I.e. more instances of the use of this particular word. Sometimes I like the Oxford better for the same reason.

[Iwannaplato]

That would be naturalism under the persuasive definition fallacy of what most people consider to be "natural".

Well, it would be naturalism as the term is used by the people who use the term naturalism. And naturalist, generally, view everything that exists as natural and deny the existence, not of hammers or The Mona LIsa, but of things that are opposed, often in dualisms, with the physical and natural. So, if you want to run the everyday use of natural against the meaning of nature in naturalism, it will lead to a mess. In a sense, it seems to me, you are deciding to redefine naturalist. It'll all sort out, once everyone bangs on definitions, but given the population here, it could go on for months or years.

I'll leave you guys to it.

[Skepdick]

Well, it would be naturalism as the term is used by the people who use the term naturalism.

And they use the term as per the Oxford definition of the term "natural". Such that there are natural and non-natural things.

For if there were no such things as non-natural things then the term "natural" would lose its meaning to a naturalist; and a naturalist's identity would become entirely vacuous.

And naturalist, generally, view everything that exists as natural

This is already captured in my argument.

Naturalists don't view the contents of the human minds as "existing" therefore the contents of the human mind are NOT natural.

and deny the existence, not of hammers or The Mona LIsa, but of things that are opposed, often in dualisms, with the physical and natural.

Precisely. They deny the existence of the NON-natural; and the NON-physical. They deny the existence of the NON-objective.

Such a naturalist would surely reject the soundness of my argument, specifically they would reject P1 - the impossibility of derriving morals from nature, meaning they believe that morals can be derrived from nature. And when pressed to produce an example of even one such derivation - they can't.

OK, so what evidence convinces a naturalist that such a thing is possible?

If they can't produce any such evidence then their rejection of my premise is irrational and unreasonable.

So, if you want to run the everyday use of natural against the meaning of nature in naturalism, it will lead to a mess. In a sense, it seems to me, you are deciding to redefine naturalist.

No, I am not. If a naturalist has decided to re-define nature from the Oxford definition which has exclusions; to a definition which includes everything and excludes nothing, then intellectual honesty requires them to admit doing so.

But if they do that - the word "nature" and "naturalism" becomes a vacuous identity.

It'll all sort out, once everyone bangs on definitions, but given the population here, it could go on for months or years.

Not really - the argument doesn't depend on definitions. It depends on category inhabitance.

Is the category/set of NON-natural things empty or does it have inhabitants?

If we can show that it has even one inhabitant then the NON-natural exists.
If it has no inhabitants then only the natural exists.

[Skepdick]

Oxford’s wrong.

Eh?

What's your criteria for determining which dictionary is "right" or "wrong"?

I like mine better. It has more definitions for natural than yours, I.e. more instances of the use of this particular word. Sometimes I like the Oxford better for the same reason.

OK, so there are many different uses for those words.

What makes any given use "wrong"?

Where is the source of rightness and wrongness with respect to the use of words that you are appealing to? Is your source natural?

[Will Bouwman]

"Impossible" simply means NOT possible. And I say that it's NOT possible because I haven't seen anybody do it.

Oh I see. Well in that case, my regards to your NOT possible wife and her NOT possible pregnancy.