One thing at a time. Yes, I would argue against 4 based upon empirical evidence to the contrary. However, that is not my interest here. My interest is in confirming whether or not you've arrived at logical conclusions for the earlier claim you made...

Again...

I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. — creativesoul

The argument presented today does not suffice. 4 assumes exactly what's in contention. Show me an argument that arrives at that claim via logical conclusion.

4 does not assume what's under contention. And I am not wasting any more time with someone who thinks otherwise. I might as well show the argument to a horse.

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

That is the matter under contention.

Yes, and 4 doesn't assert it. Have you had a stroke??

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason?

That was an aside based upon Bartricks' participation here. I was curious to his belief in/of God. — creativesoul

So, what you are saying is that your question was unnecessary.

It was not relevant to the current contention. Hence, I've not pursued it or revisited it except to answer your questions about it.

It was not relevant to the current contention. — creativesoul

OK. I was just curious. I thought you may have felt it was relevant for some reason. It's good to know that it wasn't.

One thing at a time, to quote you. 4 does not assert that imperatives of reason are imperatives of God. You can see this by learning English and then reading the content of 4.
You in a cafe:

What would you like, sir?

A chicken pie please.

Here you go.

This is a chicken pie. I ordered a pint of beer.

No sir, you ordered a chicken pie.

I said 'a chicken pie please'

Yes. That's ordering a chicken pie. You say those words.

But I wanted a pint of beer.

Okay, but you said you wanted a chicken pie.

A chicken pie isn't a pint of beer.

Yes. But you ordered a chicken pie.

I can't drink a chicken pie.

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason?

A value isn't an imperative, so no. All moral norms are imperatives of Reason if one means by a norm 'an imperative'
And Reason is God. That's what the argument demonstrated.

It's relevant in discussions involving the God of Abraham. Bartricks doesn't claim such a God, I suppose. So... no sense in pursuing those lines of thought here...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason? — creativesoul

All moral norms are imperatives of Reason if one means by a norm 'an imperative' — Bartricks

Well, I'm asking what you are arguing here.

Are all moral norms imperatives of Reason?

And I just told you my answer.

Shall I help you understand it?

Those moral norms that are imperatives are imperatives of Reason.

Those moral norms that are not imperatives but something else - urgings or recommendations, perhaps - are the urgings or recommendations of Reason.

This isn't hard.

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

Perhaps it best to start over...

Do you have an argument for the claim quoted above?

It's relevant in discussions involving the God of Abraham. — creativesoul

But you just said that discussion of God does not require belief in God. Indeed, you yourself seem to be discussing God without actually believing in God. Or have I misunderstood you?

There are arguments against the God of Abraham that do not apply to other beliefs in/of God. Hence, my question informed me that those arguments may not be applicable to Bartricks. It's not mysterious. Fairly simple really.

Yes, the one I provided and that you don't understand.

Waiter: yes, you can't drink chicken pie. The point is that you ordered chicken pie, not a pint of beer

Let's start over.

Ok. What would you like?

A chicken pie.

Er, are you sure? You sure you don't want a pint of beer?

Chicken pie!!

Well, er, I just brought you one - it's in front of you.

But I wanted a pint of beer.

Hence, my question informed me that those arguments may not be applicable to Bartricks. It's not mysterious. — creativesoul

It wasn't mysterious before, but I think it is beginning to become mysterious now.

A question can't inform you. An answer can.

Irrelevant quibbling...

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

One more try...

Do you have an argument in which the above claim is a logical conclusion?

Yes

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Your failure to offer it voluntarily after our exchange here today is not a good sign.

Irrelevant quibbling... — creativesoul

I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You yourself said it was relevant:

It's relevant in discussions involving the God of Abraham. — creativesoul

After which you said:

my question informed me that those arguments may not be applicable to Bartricks — creativesoul

1. Questions don't inform, answers do.

2. If "those arguments may not be applicable to Bartricks", this suggests that you are still not informed, despite your question.

Chicken pie!!

Total gibberish.

Chicken pie!! — Bartricks

:up:

Okay. So either you will not or cannot support that claim by arguing for it as a conclusion. Neither is acceptable here. The claim assumes exactly what's in question, whether or not God is necessary for being good. In addition, Im forced to conclude that you have not reached your beliefs via reasoned conclusions, as you said earlier. Rather, you assume exactly what needs argued for, as can be seen below in two contradictory but otherwise logically equal(valid) arguments...


If it is the case that all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God, and being good requires following moral norms and prescriptions, then God is necessary for being good.

If it is not the case that all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God, and being good requires following moral norms and prescriptions, then God is not necessary for being good.