There are moral norms and values throughout the world that stand in direct contradiction to one another. If the one is true, then the other is false, and vice versa. In light of that, if all moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, then God is self-contradictory, or else not all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God.

I have not even touched upon euthyphro...

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. — creativesoul

Have you demonstrated that this is not the case? I don't think you have.

4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source — Bartricks

Why single? But you and creative are trying to figure that bit out so I won’t double down on this for now.

The problem is what is an “imperative of reason”? Reason isn’t a set of imperatives. “Eat your dinner” that’s an imperative, a command. “A cannot be true and false in the same sense at the same time” is not an imperative. It doesn’t tell anyone to do anything. It’s called a law of reason. And it’s not so much issued by minds as discovered by them (but that’s a whole other topic).

“Follow the laws of reason” (colloquially, “be reasonable”) now that’s an imperative, one I suggest to you at that. I don’t remember God telling me that one though. I think I’d remember if God commanded me to do something. Hell, I remember different people telling me to follow or thwart the “imperative to follow reason” at different times. People. Not God.

I don’t remember God telling me that one though. I think I’d remember if God commanded me to do something. — khaled

So, you are using your personal lack of remembrance as an argument for the non-occurence of an event witnessed by others?

Try writing in prose instead of that semi-literate drivel.

He is an inspired fellow. You know what "Anand" and "Haqq" means, don't you?

So far your failure/inability/unwillingness to answer is ruinous of discussion. — tim wood

I'm afraid you are wrong here. It's central to the discussion. Bart's obfuscation is the reason this thread is interminable.

...inspired... — Apollodorus

inspire (v.)
mid-14c., enspiren, "to fill (the mind, heart, etc., with grace, etc.);" also "to prompt or induce (someone to do something)," from Old French enspirer (13c.), from Latin inspirare "blow into, breathe upon," figuratively "inspire, excite, inflame," from in- "in" (from PIE root *en "in") + spirare "to breathe"

He's a wind-bag - yes.

He's a wind-bag - yes. — Banno

That's what I meant. You won't stop him just like you can't stop the wind ....

What are you on about? I am not religious. I believe in God. I am not religious. — Bartricks

Why aren’t you religious?

I’ll quote you again for the third time:

But the idea that faith is 'required' for religion is absurd. — Bartricks

We may need no more faith in God than chatting with them at the local pub. They may be as plainly real as anyone or anything else. No “faith” required. Religion, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Neat job. A neat dissection of Bart's inept ratiocination.

Good to have you involved again. There's a dearth of folk with some background in philosophy at present. Together with a few folk who have too much time and yet no capacity, crowding the site with nonsense.

Hope that your foray into real life was productive.

↪Anand-Haqq
Try writing in prose instead of that semi-literate drivel. — Banno

I prefer his poetry to Bart's poetry. it scans better - and makes just as much sense (maybe more).

Perhaps. For Happy Truth it's an issue of translation; but there are minimum standards for readability on this forum that Anand does not meet. Also, both have messianic tendencies.

I presented the argument (which I knew would be a waste of time). You don't know how to argue well. You learnt your skills from Russell Brand - that's what you said, yes? You said 4 asserted that God exists, which it doesn't as anyone who can read can know.

Because I'm not religious. I believe in God. I am not religious. Not hard to understand (unless you're creativesoul, in which case I just said I am an onion and the number 8).

And faith isn't necessary to be religious. Perhaps this claim confuses you and sounds like it might contradict my claim not to be religious - it would sound like that to the dumb. There are people of faith who are religious and there are people who believe in God on rational grounds who are religious, and some may have started out one kind and become the other. But me? I believe in God on rational ground and I am not religious.

Thanks.

I'm quite pleased with progress in real life. Looking forward to retirement.

:wink:

Which premise are you trying to challenge?

So, you are using your personal lack of remembrance as an argument for the non-occurence of an event witnessed by others? — Apollodorus

“Witnessed by others”? Who? Who here claimed that God came down and told them “be reasonable”? Just Bart. Makes me think he’s just crazy.

Did God come down and tell you to be reasonable?

And no, I’m using my lack of remembrance as an argument for the non occurrence of an event that Bart claims happened to me. I don’t remember God telling me to be reasonable. In fact I don’t remember God telling me anything. And I would remember if he did. Just another area where Bart’s system is confused. When exactly did God tell all of us to be reasonable? No one seems to remember it.

I presented the argument — Bartricks

You mean this one?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is an existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

That argument is not an example which has "all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God" as a logical conclusion. That's what I asked for.

The sheer number of falsehoods stated by you about what I've said here is astounding. Those false accusations seem to be increasing as time goes on. No surprise really.

Bart has fallen back to ad homs. That marks the end of a cycle in the discussion.

I recall such straight thinkers in my introductory logic classes. I don't wish to use the term as a pejorative, but its an almost autistic approach to argument: "a developmental disorder of variable severity that is characterised by difficulty in social interaction and communication and by restricted or repetitive patterns of thought and behaviour".

Are you going around again?

Not challenging a premise. Just asking you what “imperatives of reason” are. I know what imperatives are. I know what laws of reason are. Idk what that word salad is.

The mind described in 5 will be God. That is, it will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. No point wasting time explaining why that will be to someone who doesn't understand how arguments work.

That argument proves God. It proves God because the mind in 5 is God. I don't have to show that for it to be true (you think otherwise, but that'sbecause you learnt to reason from russell brand). I can show it. But I don't have to. It proves God regardless of whether I take the trouble to explain to you why that mind will have the omni properties.

Bart has fallen back to ad homs — Banno

Yeah, that seems to be the go to response just before being drectly faced with a problem in the reasoning. There's probably not much left to discuss on that matter.

Euthyphro poses yet another problem for divine command notions, of which Bartricks seems to be arguing along such llines of persuasion....

And faith isn't necessary to be religious. Perhaps this claim confuses you and sounds like it might contradict my claim not to be religious - it would sound like that to the dumb. — Bartricks

I asked why you aren’t religious. Perhaps you’re too dumb to answer.

The argument tells you: imperatives a single existent mind is issuing.

Because I am not religious. Why would I be? Presumably you think that if someone reasons to the conclusion God exists, they will then think 'well, I better go join a religion'. Why would I do that? How does one get from 'God exists' to 'the bible is correct about everything' or 'the Koran is correct about everything'?? Maybe they are or one of them is - but it is not implied by the argument on whose basis I believe in God.

?

So any imperative that is issued by a single mind is an imperative of reason? So “Do a backflip after eating 2 Burger King whoppers” is an imperative of reason? I’m pretty sure I’m the only mind so far who has issued it since it’s so ridiculous and specific. Guess that makes it an imperative of reason…

But just to be clear, imperatives of reason have nothing to do with reason (law of non contradiction, etc) and everything to do with the number of minds issuing an imperative? If that that number is 1 it is an imperative “of reason” otherwise it’s just a good ol command.

And additionally, that which issues the imperatives of reason is later found to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Guess since I just issued one I’m all 3 then! Wow I can feel the power already!

Cmon Bart. You can do better than that. Can you at least give an example of an imperative of reason?

Are you going around again? — Banno

Nah. I asked, and later clarified what I was asking for. An argument meeting that criterion has not yet been put forth. So, I've not much else to say regarding that...

Er, no. There are imperatives of Reason and those are imperatives that have a single existent mind as their source. Just follow the argument.

You keep asking what an imperative of reason is - why? The argument shows you.

Are you, perhaps, trying to deny that there are any, but just using the wrong words to do it?

Or are you asking me to provide you with the content of one?