CASE gagged

CASE officers pursuing rival terrorist group operation 513 were gagged today after proving there is no such thing as objective morality.

The Operation 513 argument, advanced by mind slave Ryan Hemelaar ("msrh"), was that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

In support of this silly argument - msrh quotes from Michael Ruse as follows:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory."

CASE made various points asking where this objective morality resides - to which there was no response. Accordingly, CASE returned to the initial silliness and noted that:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist

This is inductive logic and can only be shown where you have knowledge of everything in the universe - thus the argument fails on point 1. I do not even have to put forward a second suggestion because it relies on a. evidence for God (of which there is none) and b. evidence of objective morality (of which there is none).

Of course, I will show below with respect to his commentary that what he has termed objective morals are actually a false description.

2. Objective moral values do exist

Not proven - definition insufficient for testing. Point 2 fails.

3. Therefore, God exists

Again, based on an unproven assumption.

So, why has ryan made a mistake

Firstly, he has made a massive leap into the inductive world. We know that such arguments are prone to failure and should not be relied upon.

Secondly, he has put in a definition of 'objective morality' which is not technically objective. Such that his evidence for objective morality given in part based on the statement of Michael Ruse does not fit in with his point 1.

Point 1. would only work if God is the one that created the "objective morality" and yet in the definition given by Michael Ruse, a completely different cause is given:-

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.

So did God give us this "objective morality" or was it a response to the environment?

Furthermore, Michael Ruse accepts that the morality sourced in this way is a response to the individual's needs for survival:-

Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory

Because each individual has a different survival pressure put upon them, they will neccesarily develop a morality that is "subject" to their own circumstances -accordingly, Michael Ruse is saying that morality is subjective based on identifiable causes.

Is this what Ryan meant in line 1:-

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist

No, it isnt. Why? Because those survival pressures exist independent of God. Thus morality is independent of God, based on the very evidence that Ryan brings to this argument.

It was after outlining these arguments that msrh blocked further comments on the article and stated, inter alia:-

The Michael Ruse quote was not supporting that objective morality exists, but rather to show that if God does not exist then no objective morality should exist. But objective morals do exist, so thus God must exist.

This seems a little at odds with his initial introduction that:-

The first premise is acknowledged by many atheist philosophers as being plausibly true, even the prominent philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,

Michael Ruse's quote is just a description of how we (possibly) determine right and wrong for ourselves. It has nothing to do with objective morality, nor does it give any credence to the notion that objective morality requires God. Rather, it is evidence that morality is subjective. In which case, msrh is required to show where this 'objective morality' comes from? Could it be that a Christian did not understand his own argument?

Despite open requests and several opportunities - msrh has not provided a single shred of evidence for objective morality, rather he has stated:-

But objective morals do exist, so thus [sic] God must exist.

He wants it to be true so much that he puts in the equals sign twice. Perhaps CASE should, for the sake of msrh provide a short statement on what makes a logical argument.

1. A logical argument is based on several related points

2. The connection between each of the related points must be established

3. Each point or statement must be substantiated with evidence

4. Any terms that are used must be defined sufficiently

5. Statements that are not supported by evidence cannot be relied upon to connect otherwise unrelated points.

So, msrh has committed the grevious error of failing to define 'objective morality' (4), making statements that God is required for there to be 'objective morality' without any connection (2), failing to provide any evidence for 'objective morality (3), relying on unproven points to conclude that God exists (5). Thus, his argument is not logical (1).

Of course, gagging CASE while being torn to shreds is an example of morality in itself, after all:-

Morality is just an aid to survival

Now you decide, was that right or was it wrong? (or is that too obvious for you?)