Author Topic: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God  (Read 2647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« on: October 03, 2011, 11:38:15 AM »
This is a debate or discussion between curiousgirl and L-Chaim.  You are free to set the format (formal debate, casual conversation, whatever) or add participants, provided both of you agree.  You should determine those parameters upfront because that sets my guidelines for moderation. 

Posts by non-participants will be deleted.

Enjoy.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2011, 09:44:53 AM »
Thank you screwtape, and CuriousGirl for accepting to debate me.

My argument for the existence of God will not be based on the Cartesian model for proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) rather it will be an inference to the best explanation, based on the argument given from the morale argument.

Before i go on the debate is set up for me to put forth a positive claim for the existence of the God of the Bible so i have to make one thing clear before i go on, that my faith in the bible as the Word of God is my first principle, my axion as the basis for theology and life and as such my axiom cannot be proved as your axiom or first principle for though cannot be proved either but they must be defended and able to stand up to scrutiny. I say this because all the arguments i will give will not lead to the God of the Bible, they will if accepted show there is a transcendent being but the Bible has to be taken by faith (without faith it is impossible to please God) but this faith is not without reason. so here goes with my reasons;

The Moral Argument

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

3.) Therefore, God exists.

Now as stated before this is not deductive proof that lead to the God of the Bible, it is a inference to the best explanation why Objective moral values exist, and the God of the Bible is the Best explanation for this as i see it, as without Him there is no grounding for objective moral values. I have chosen this topic as it will no doubt lead to the most challenging case against Christianity (The problem of Evil) so i'm not trying to duck anything here. I'm willing to address any problem you wish to raise.

If you dont mind i would like you to also state your axioms so i know where you are at, so we can zero in quickly to the real issues and not waste time.

Thank you ! i appreciate your time talking to me btw this seems kinda cold and methodical so i hope you know i appreciate your time and hope we can be friends.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2011, 10:20:09 AM »
L-Chaim, I told you via PM that we needed to post rules for our debate before you proceeded. Here were the rules we discussed:

1) The debate must stay within the scope of whether or not God exists.

2)  The debate will be 20 posts long. (You just used one).

3) The posting pattern should be the following:

You: ONE argument for your positive claim that Bible God exists
Me: A refutation of your argument
You: Agree or disagree with my refutation
Me: Agree or disagree with you

We should follow that ordered pattern until we reach 20 posts.

4) Try not to get personal.

5) Post a minimum of one coherent reply per day.

I need to know if you agree with this, since you've been ignoring these rules via PM. Post whether or not you agree right after this post (your agreement will not count as part of the 20 posts). I will then proceed to refute your argument.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2011, 10:27:19 AM »
Yes.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2011, 01:16:17 PM »
Debate post #2 of 20: My Refutation of the Moral Argument


The Moral Argument

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

There is a problem with this premise. I would say that unfortunately, you have it backwards if you think that God is the source of morality. If one looks at the Bible, which is supposed to be the source for evidence of God's "morality," one might be able to tell that the Biblical laws were due to the Self-Projection as God (SPAG) of Biblical authors. For example, let's look at this law:

Quote
Deuteronomy 22
28-29  If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,  he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (NIV)

Instead of concluding that your loving God made this law as part of his objective moral value system, it is more logical to conclude that the Biblical authors thought of women as property (hence the silver-paying) and they made a law that enabled men to treat women as such. Here in the modern-day US (where I am located), this would be thought of by society as abhorrent and archaic. So you can see here not only that this law was an example of subjective morality, but that objective morality does not exist.

Let me empasize that it is more logical to conclude that mankind created the concept of morality (which changes with time, and is therefore subjective) because it was evolutionarily beneficial to do so:

http://jeronymklimes.webpark.cz/mojeprace/morality_evolution.pdf

Quote
But when we go through literature we can find that only little attention was paid to this short-time adaptation to microenvironment, and what mechanisms are exploited to gain additional increase in fitness. One of those tuning mechanisms is morality, which I understand here as a natural integration of experiences of passed generations.


2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

No, they do not. A rather common rebuttal to the Moral Argument is the Euthyphro Dilemma. Here it is:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument

Quote
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Both options are problematic for those who would claim morality is dependent upon God.
If God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree, then God has no higher standard to answer to. Therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary.

I would like to elaborate on the point that God's will may be seen as "purely arbitrary". Let's look at this:

Quote
Ezekiel 18
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (NIV)

Then, God kills David’s baby for his adultery:

Quote
2 Samuel 12
13-14 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the LORD, the son born to you will die.” (NIV)

Clearly, God was giving the sinner full responsibility (and therefore punishment) in Ezekiel. However, in 2 Samuel, a baby is killed because his father committed adultery. This is an example of God doing what he wants despite an “objective” rule being in place. Therefore, even  God (as a fictional character) does not hold to his own “objective” standards. He treats them as subjective.

3.) Therefore, God exists.

No, he does not. He is just a character in mythology, just like Zeus. No one has been able to live up to the challenge of meeting the burden of proof so far when they claim that God exists.

If you dont mind i would like you to also state your axioms so i know where you are at, so we can zero in quickly to the real issues and not waste time.

L-Chaim, you have the burden of proof because you made the positive claim that God exists. I am coming from a position of skepticism, so stating my axioms would be pointless.

Thank you ! i appreciate your time talking to me btw this seems kinda cold and methodical so i hope you know i appreciate your time and hope we can be friends.

I appreciate your time as well, and I reciprocate your friendliness.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2011, 10:36:17 PM »
I realize that I am posting out of turn, but I need to rectify some issues. I would like to address that it has been pointed out that L-Chaim and I have gotten off to a bad start with this debate. I got way too ahead of myself, and I apologize for that.

L-Chaim, I need you to start a new post with some logical reasons why I should accept each premise of the Moral Argument, rather than just laying out the bare argument. I, in turn, will attempt to refrain from jumping down a ridiculous rabbit hole.  ;D

If you agree to do this, we can start from scratch and your next post can be post #1 of our debate.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2011, 05:17:58 AM »

L-Chaim, I need you to start a new post with some logical reasons why I should accept each premise of the Moral Argument, rather than just laying out the bare argument. I, in turn, will attempt to refrain from jumping down a ridiculous rabbit hole.  ;D

I'll retype the syllogism again and explain the terms within them, I wont tell you why you should accept the premises. I will present the premises and you can then refute them or accept them The argument is logically valid and the conclusion necessarily follows, it may look bare but thats syllogisms for you, this method makes it easier to address the specific points of the argument.

1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

(By moral values i mean things that are inherently right or wrong e.g it is right to love and care for a child and it is wrong to torture a child and kill it. By objective i mean not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations)

2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

3.) Therefore, God exists

You done quite a bit of quoting from the Bible and i want to keep away from the Bible until you have addressed the argument presented. Theres no need to start all over again. you can have an extra post at the end if you like. Thank you




Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2011, 10:26:50 AM »

I'll retype the syllogism again and explain the terms within them, I wont tell you why you should accept the premises.

Why not??? Should we replace the word "won't" with "can't" in that sentence?


I will present the premises and you can then refute them or accept them The argument is logically valid and the conclusion necessarily follows, it may look bare but thats syllogisms for you, this method makes it easier to address the specific points of the argument.

L-Chaim, I am not blindly going to accept your premises. You have the burden of proof here. You need to give some logical reasons why I should accept any of the following:


1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(By moral values i mean things that are inherently right or wrong e.g it is right to love and care for a child and it is wrong to torture a child and kill it. By objective i mean not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations)


Prove that using logic.


2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Prove it.


3.) Therefore, God exists


You need to prove #1 and 2 if you want me to accept #3.


You done quite a bit of quoting from the Bible and i want to keep away from the Bible until you have addressed the argument presented. Theres no need to start all over again. you can have an extra post at the end if you like. Thank you

LC, if you are making positive claims, you need to support them before I refute them. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with this debate. I am not going to make the mistake (again) of trying to refute a bare bones unsupported argument. That is not my job. I am the skeptic, LC. I can reject your premises on the basis that you have not given me any logical reason to accept them. Do you understand where I am coming from here?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2011, 11:18:57 AM »

Why not??? Should we replace the word "won't" with "can't" in that sentence?

Oi vey.


L-Chaim, I am not blindly going to accept your premises. You have the burden of proof here. You need to give some logical reasons why I should accept any of the following:

Ok this is a more coherent answer than the first reply so i'll answer it, (i'm not going to debate myself here).

If God does not exist there is no ultimate grounding for morality. Morality becomes subjective and arbitrary IF God does not Exist. If atheism is true why should anyone not live according to their own standards of ethics they deem true for themselves ? If there is no moral law giver then there is no objective standard outside the moral agent to hold them accountable to the laws.

God as the moral law giver has endowed us with the A priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) of the natural law, The natural law is an ordinance of reason, for the common good,  think of the natural law against murder. It is not arbitrary, but a rule that the moral agent can grasp as right. It does not  serve some special interest, but the universal good, it is not a secret rule, for God has arranged his creation so that every rational being knows about it.


Prove that using logic.

Prove what exactly ? that the torture and killing of children is wrong ? If you don't accept this as the breaking of a moral value there is no real purpose in debating morality with you.


2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.

Prove it.

Do you agree that it is wrong for a man to rape a woman ? if yes then this is an example of a moral value, i.e rape is wrong ! and is always wrong no matter what the circumstances. People deserve to be respected and not violated this is a moral duty. Simple example if you need more clarification let me know though.


3.) Therefore, God exists


You need to prove #1 and 2 if you want me to accept #3.

Agreed !

but remember i'm not arguing from a beyond a shadow of doubt here, i believe the moral argument in the above syllogism form is the best explanation for the grounding of morality, else why should morality not be subjective and rape be right in some cases ? in athieism whats to stop this, where is the grounding for morality in atheism ?


You done quite a bit of quoting from the Bible and i want to keep away from the Bible until you have addressed the argument presented. Theres no need to start all over again. you can have an extra post at the end if you like. Thank you

LC, if you are making positive claims, you need to support them before I refute them. Otherwise, we cannot proceed with this debate. I am not going to make the mistake (again) of trying to refute a bare bones unsupported argument. That is not my job. I am the skeptic, LC. I can reject your premises on the basis that you have not given me any logical reason to accept them. Do you understand where I am coming from here?

Ok....i have explained the premises now you can go ahead and refute them,  but the premises inthemselves are actually the argument but you and others dont seem to think this is good enough, i mean the terms were defined so whats the problem, whats holding the attack of the premises back ? If i were claiming cat's were blue then i would see the problem with the premises but the premises of objective moral values and moral duties are evident to most people, do you not believe they exist ? I was not expecting this to have to be explained so maybe thats an oversight on my part. sorry




Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2011, 12:08:37 PM »
Let me try to keep you both on the same page without having to use up a ton of posts.

L-Chaim,

The previous post is a more expansive restatement of your original premise, not a validation of it.  The key principle here, in this forum, is that if you make a claim, then it is incumbent on you to show it is true.  So while it may seem obvious to you that morality is subjective without gods, it is not clear to us and needs to be demonstrated with either evidence or a decent rationale.  Otherwise, you are setting her up to disprove something that may be unfalsifiable, which is not really a nice thing to do. 

The key question for you to answer in that regard is "how do you know?" How do you know morality is objective? 

I hope that helps.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2011, 02:25:39 PM »
Let me try to keep you both on the same page without having to use up a ton of posts.

L-Chaim,

The previous post is a more expansive restatement of your original premise, not a validation of it.  The key principle here, in this forum, is that if you make a claim, then it is incumbent on you to show it is true.  So while it may seem obvious to you that morality is subjective without gods, it is not clear to us and needs to be demonstrated with either evidence or a decent rationale.  Otherwise, you are setting her up to disprove something that may be unfalsifiable, which is not really a nice thing to do. 

The key question for you to answer in that regard is "how do you know?" How do you know morality is objective? 

I hope that helps.


I'm not arguing that morality is objective i'm arguing Without God there is no grounding for objective moral values. My argument is this...God is the moral Law giver so objective moral values are only grounded in the law giver without whom morals as i see it would become subjective.  I then argue objective moral values exist (It is always wrong to kill,rape,torture ect innocent people) this is objective in that the moral agent doesn't get to choose weather or not it is right to rape, kill, torture, it always wrong and it always wrong because God has decreed it such as He is Good by nature.

I'm not getting what the problem is here, this is as basic as i can put the argument if it's not understood then the debate ends.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2011, 04:27:22 PM »
LC, the debate has barely even begun. We're just stuck at the beginning because of your refusal to cooperate. Your problem is that you need to stop restating your argument, and actually provide some logical reasons why I should accept your premises instead.

Also, you used objective (not subjective) morality as part of your argument:


2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.


So when you say this, it sounds like you are just playing semantical games (you certainly aren't arguing that morality is subjective). My bolding below:

I'm not arguing that morality is objective....I then argue objective moral values exist (It is always wrong to kill,rape,torture ect innocent people)... it always wrong and it always wrong because God has decreed it such as He is Good by nature.
 

You still need to support your premises.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 05:04:18 PM by curiousgirl »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2011, 05:48:37 AM »
LC, the debate has barely even begun. We're just stuck at the beginning because of your refusal to cooperate. Your problem is that you need to stop restating your argument, and actually provide some logical reasons why I should accept your premises instead.

No the problem is your refusal to engage any points or primes pout forth.

Also, you used objective (not subjective) morality as part of your argument:


2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.


Yeah..... do you agree or disagree with this primes ?


So when you say this, it sounds like you are just playing semantical games (you certainly aren't arguing that morality is subjective). My bolding below:

I'm not arguing that morality is objective....I then argue objective moral values exist (It is always wrong to kill,rape,torture ect innocent people)... it always wrong and it always wrong because God has decreed it such as He is Good by nature.
 

Whats the problem with this, objective moral values and duties are part of the primes but the argument i'm making is that they are grounded in the moral law giver (God).

I dont see how you have come to that conclusion but if you dont get it then we cant debate. It's a dead duck. my apologies if i havn't been arguing they way you expected but this is how i present a case, The logical syllogism was valid the primes's were coherent, the terms were defined. I obviously need work when communicating with atheists. I have been writing in the other thread maybe you could comment there ? but this as a debate is a non starter. Probably my fault i was intending to leave the forum after my first thread fiasco and you were the only one who had serious questions so i thought we could debate, but it hasn't worked out. ...i dont know what else you expect but just saying "prove it" is not a debate. So thank you for the time spent.


Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2011, 09:41:51 AM »
No the problem is your refusal to engage any points or primes pout forth.

LC, your axioms are not self-evident to me. I am an agnostic atheist, remember? The problem with so-called "self-evident truths" is that anything can be called self-evident by a believer or supporter, whether it is true or not. Which is why you need to prove why it is true. Otherwise, you are copping out on me.


Yeah..... do you agree or disagree with this primes ?


LC, you need to show me a logical reason to agree with the premises. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe they are true, as they are NOT self-evident to me.



Whats the problem with this, objective moral values and duties are part of the primes but the argument i'm making is that they are grounded in the moral law giver (God).


LC, you are using circular reasoning here. If you want to prove God’s existence based on the existence of objective morality, you cannot prove objective morality based on God’s existence. You are jumping the gun by saying that morals come from God (let alone Bible God) when you have not proven the existence of objective morality or the existence of God. You are back at square one.

I dont see how you have come to that conclusion but if you dont get it then we cant debate. It's a dead duck. my apologies if i havn't been arguing they way you expected but this is how i present a case,

LC, I have not been asking anything unreasonable of you. It is normal for your opponent to ask you to prove your premises true.

 
The logical syllogism was valid the primes's were coherent, the terms were defined. I obviously need work when communicating with atheists. I have been writing in the other thread maybe you could comment there ? but this as a debate is a non starter. Probably my fault i was intending to leave the forum after my first thread fiasco and you were the only one who had serious questions so i thought we could debate, but it hasn't worked out. ...i dont know what else you expect but just saying "prove it" is not a debate. So thank you for the time spent.

What you don't seem to understand is that what is self-evident to you is not self-evident to me, and therefore cannot be defined as self-evident in this argument. It is perfectly appropriate in a debate for your opponent to ask you to provide logical reasons for your premises.

See, the problem is that I could go back and replace the word "God" in your premise #1 and your conclusion with "Flying Spaghetti Monster," but would that mean that it was true even if the logical syllogism was valid? NO. Yet by YOUR own "logic," we WOULD have to come to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Do you see the problem here???

This is the debate thread. It would be appropriate for you to debate me in here, not in the discussion thread for non-participants. Please post your reasons for your premises being true in this thread.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2011, 09:54:54 AM by curiousgirl »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2011, 10:50:21 AM »
curiousgirl,

please hold off on responding in this thread until I can get everyone on the same page. 

L-Chaim,

maybe the confusion is back here:

I'll retype the syllogism again and explain the terms within them, I wont tell you why you should accept the premises. I will present the premises and you can then refute them or accept them

And that is then followed by the 3 step argument.  As I read it[1], you are saying "here is my argument, prove it is wrong."  If that is not what you are saying, then it would be helpful if you explained it differently to help us understand. 

If that is what you are saying, then I would ask that you try a different approach.  Our SOP around here is that the claimant has the burden of proof.  So if you want someone to accept that there are no objective morals without god, it is up to you to show that is a true statement.  If you want someone to accept that there are in fact objective morals, it is up to you to show that it is the case.

I hope that helps. 

Regards



 1. and I think curiousgirl reads it
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12251
  • Darwins +663/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2011, 10:52:38 AM »
L-Chaim,

I see you posting in the thread for discussing this one.  Am I to take it this thread is concluded?  If not, maybe your next post should be here, instead of there.  Let me know.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #16 on: October 08, 2011, 05:22:06 AM »
Ok in order to progress the debate i propose a change in direction.

I will make the argument that objective moral values exist, then once we have reasoned together i will give my the case for the best explanation of the etiology (cause/origin) of objective moral values, no prizes where i'm going with that. So it is basically the same argument but opening with a question to hopefully stimulate a debate.

My first claim: Objective moral values exist.

Objective moral values exist in the world, we as human beings know that certain acts are inherently wrong, one of the easier examples would be the rape and killing of children which  unfortunately happens a lot. This aforementioned act is objective in the sense that it is not subject to individual interpretation, even if the person committing the act does not agree that it is wrong...the act remains WRONG !

It has been said that the man who says 2+2=5 is just as wrong as the man who says raping and killing children is right, even more so !....... because if we are morally healthy and mentally fit human being we are outraged when we hear of such acts, we are not so outraged at someone who gets a math question wrong (unless you are my old maths teacher). This shows that there are moral laws outside of the moral agent that are not dependent on his acceptance of the moral laws, they exist.

Question: Is this proposition above agreed on, do you accept what i have said ? Do objective moral values exist ? 

if yes then we can both proceed to explain the etiology of objective moral values and exchange ideas and see who has the best explanation for their existence in the world.


 

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #17 on: October 08, 2011, 10:07:20 AM »
Ok in order to progress the debate i propose a change in direction.

I will make the argument that objective moral values exist, then once we have reasoned together i will give my the case for the best explanation of the etiology (cause/origin) of objective moral values, no prizes where i'm going with that. So it is basically the same argument but opening with a question to hopefully stimulate a debate.

My first claim: Objective moral values exist.

Objective moral values exist in the world, we as human beings know that certain acts are inherently wrong, one of the easier examples would be the rape and killing of children which  unfortunately happens a lot. This aforementioned act is objective in the sense that it is not subject to individual interpretation, even if the person committing the act does not agree that it is wrong...the act remains WRONG !

OK, in order for this debate to get anywhere, I am going to show you why your claim is false.

As I have stated before, objective moral values do not exist, therefore I cannot accept your claim as true. Morality is subjective. Current mainstream versions of subjective morality that we agree with say that the rape and killing of children is wrong. I won’t argue with that. However, it was not called wrong to every culture in every time period. For example:

http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/08_infanticide.html

Quote
Infant skulls split by an ax have been found at religious sites from Stonehenge to Jericho, early Arabians sacrificed their infants to “the Mothers,” Aztecs ripped out the hearts of their children and ate them, in India children were sacrificed in quantity to goddesses well into the nineteenth century, and Mayans still sometimes sacrifice their children in the mountains to give them good luck in cocaine trade.33

So the killing of children, in certain ancient cultures and the modern Mayan culture, is still considered moral.

Also from that same link:

Quote
Wealthy Romans kept large harems of both sexes to rape, saying with Martialis: “How pitiful, to be the owner of thirty girls and thirty boys and have only one cock.”46 As in most societies today, the rape began when the children were about seven years old;47 although the ideal age was 12–14, many of the images show them younger. Petronius depicts men raping a seven-year-old girl, with women happily clapping in a long line around the bed.48 Being raped was simply part of growing up. The word pais could mean any of the following: “child,” “sexual partner,” “son,” “daughter,” or “slave.”49 In early Egypt, where brothers were forced to marry and rape their sisters,50 in Babylon, where daughters were sold in rape auctions, in Germanic states, where boys were sometimes forced to marry older men, in Greece, Rome, and other European states and in India, China, and Japan where incestuous sex was common, all early states assumed boys and girls could be used as sexual partners.51

Although I, a modern-day US citizen, call it immoral to rape children, the ancient wealthy Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese and Japanese people all thought it was OK to do that to kids. Just another example of our subjective morality as humans.

So no, your argument that raping and killing children is objectively wrong won’t work. Raping and killing children is subjectively wrong to you and I, but others found it to be moral. Objective morality does not exist. Morality tends to change with time and cultures, and is therefore subjective, as I pointed out above.

It has been said that the man who says 2+2=5 is just as wrong as the man who says raping and killing children is right, even more so !....... because if we are morally healthy and mentally fit human being we are outraged when we hear of such acts, we are not so outraged at someone who gets a math question wrong (unless you are my old maths teacher). This shows that there are moral laws outside of the moral agent that are not dependent on his acceptance of the moral laws, they exist.

LC, 2+2=4 is an objective statement. Therefore, it has nothing to do with morality, which is subjective, as I pointed out above. 

You and I are outraged when we hear of the raping and killing of children, but not because of some inherent God-given ability to tell right from wrong. It is because our present-day cultures, unlike the cultures above, do not believe that the gods want dead children for sacrifices. Abraham almost killed Isaac for YHWH; does that make him evil, or was he just following orders from a whimsical god?

Child rape means different things to people of different times and cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

Quote
Child marriages may depend upon socio-economic status…..
In Ashkenazi communities in the Middle Ages girls were married off very young in the Jewish community.[1] Despite the young threshold for marriage a large age gap between the spouses was opposed.[2][3] Child marriage was possible in Judaism due to the very low marriageable age for females. A ketannah (literally meaning little [one]) was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day;[4] a ketannah was completely subject to her father's authority, and her father could arrange a marriage for her without her agreement.[4]

If children are viewed as property within a certain culture, they tend not to be viewed as victims. This is disgusting to me because of my subjective moral values, but again, not all people of various cultures and times would agree with me, because they have their own subjective moral values.

Question: Is this proposition above agreed on, do you accept what i have said ? Do objective moral values exist ? 

No, objective moral values do not exist, for the reasons I outlined above.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2011, 12:40:55 PM »
OK, in order for this debate to get anywhere, I am going to show you why your claim is false.

As I have stated before, objective moral values do not exist, therefore I cannot accept your claim as true. Morality is subjective. Current mainstream versions of subjective morality that we agree with say that the rape and killing of children is wrong. I won’t argue with that. However, it was not called wrong to every culture in every time period. For example:

http://www.psychohistory.com/originsofwar/08_infanticide.html


My argument is not that these atrocious act havn't taken place throughout history in diverse cultures, my argument is that the act of child rape and murder is wrong, the title of your website reference should give you a clue to inherent wrongness of these actions ?

You on the one hand seem to agree that the rape and killing of children is wrong but this is only due to a collective subjective moral standard which is now part of our society.

Interesting

i cant help wondering if our society headed toward this type of acceptance of child rape and murder would atheists like you be against it ? on your view i dont see why they should. Thats frightening !



Infant skulls split by an ax have been found at religious sites from Stonehenge to Jericho, early Arabians sacrificed their infants to “the Mothers,” Aztecs ripped out the hearts of their children and ate them, in India children were sacrificed in quantity to goddesses well into the nineteenth century, and Mayans still sometimes sacrifice their children in the mountains to give them good luck in cocaine trade.33

Again an example from history to show it happened does not mean what happened was right or moral. It says nothing of the moral value in itself, or lack thereof, so citing historical accounts prove nothing conducive to the moral value or show it's subjective these people were simply wrong.

So the killing of children, in certain ancient cultures and the modern Mayan culture, is still considered moral.

Also from that same link:

 Wealthy Romans kept large harems of both sexes to rape, saying with Martialis: “How pitiful, to be the owner of thirty girls and thirty boys and have only one cock.”46 As in most societies today, the rape began when the children were about seven years old;47 although the ideal age was 12–14, many of the images show them younger. Petronius depicts men raping a seven-year-old girl, with women happily clapping in a long line around the bed.48 Being raped was simply part of growing up. The word pais could mean any of the following: “child,” “sexual partner,” “son,” “daughter,” or “slave.”49 In early Egypt, where brothers were forced to marry and rape their sisters,50 in Babylon, where daughters were sold in rape auctions, in Germanic states, where boys were sometimes forced to marry older men, in Greece, Rome, and other European states and in India, China, and Japan where incestuous sex was common, all early states assumed boys and girls could be used as sexual partners.51


Although I, a modern-day US citizen, call it immoral to rape children, the ancient wealthy Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese and Japanese people all thought it was OK to do that to kids. Just another example of our subjective morality as humans.

These are not an example of subjective morality they are examples of Amorality.

All you have done is give me a rather depressing history lesson of the depravity of man, you have not addressed the argument, unless by citing these examples you  agree that these culture are correct to think child rape and murder is right. If so we have another set of problems, that will hinder this debate namely Amorality.



So no, your argument that raping and killing children is objectively wrong won’t work. Raping and killing children is subjectively wrong to you and I, but others found it to be moral. Objective morality does not exist. Morality tends to change with time and cultures, and is therefore subjective, as I pointed out above.

LC, 2+2=4 is an objective statement. Therefore, it has nothing to do with morality, which is subjective, as I pointed out above. 

You and I are outraged when we hear of the raping and killing of children, but not because of some inherent God-given ability to tell right from wrong. It is because our present-day cultures, unlike the cultures above, do not believe that the gods want dead children for sacrifices. Abraham almost killed Isaac for YHWH; does that make him evil, or was he just following orders from a whimsical god?



Child rape means different things to people of different times and cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

This is now officially disturbing.

Child marriages may depend upon socio-economic status…..
In Ashkenazi communities in the Middle Ages girls were married off very young in the Jewish community.[1] Despite the young threshold for marriage a large age gap between the spouses was opposed.[2][3] Child marriage was possible in Judaism due to the very low marriageable age for females. A ketannah (literally meaning little [one]) was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day;[4] a ketannah was completely subject to her father's authority, and her father could arrange a marriage for her without her agreement.[4]


If children are viewed as property within a certain culture, they tend not to be viewed as victims. This is disgusting to me because of my subjective moral values, but again, not all people of various cultures and times would agree with me, because they have their own subjective moral values.

You cite instances from history that show these acts have taken place in a culture did not consider it wrong...my question is who is right us or them we cannot both be right. A proposition or declarative sentence cannot be true and false at the same time according to the law of non contradiction, child rape and murder is ALWAYS WRONG... Therefore its objective.

No, objective moral values do not exist, for the reasons I outlined above.

Your view then takes a double standard, you were quick  to rush to the OT in your first post to try to show God to be a moral monster, but if morals are subjective and dependent on the zeitgeist then how can you make any moral judgment on anything that is not part of your own culture ? your argument fails to condemn child rape and murder but accepts it in the back door as a concession to that particular culture and zeitgeist while you maintain it is morally wrong in this culture, do you see the contradiction here ?

So your argument fails the coherence test as the law of non contradiction is broken, because you want to keep to your correct view that child rape and murder are wrong but you dont want to concede this is a moral value for everyone. It either right or it's wrong...and those who think its right are wrong.

Seriously do you think child rape and murder is not inherently wrong !

I must admit i was not expecting this.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2011, 01:28:50 PM »

My argument is not that these atrocious act havn't taken place throughout history in diverse cultures, my argument is that the act of child rape and murder is wrong, the title of your website reference should give you a clue to inherent wrongness of these actions ?

Prove that child rape and murder is objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong.


You on the one hand seem to agree that the rape and killing of children is wrong but this is only due to a collective subjective moral standard which is now part of our society.

Interesting

i cant help wondering if our society headed toward this type of acceptance of child rape and murder would atheists like you be against it ? on your view i dont see why they should. Thats frightening !


My bolding above and below. You are using an appeal to emotion, more specifically an appeal to fear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

Quote
This fallacy has the following argument form:

Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening.
Therefore, P is true.

The argument is invalid.


See the problem up there?


Again an example from history to show it happened does not mean what happened was right or moral. It says nothing of the moral value in itself, or lack thereof, so citing historical accounts prove nothing conducive to the moral value or show it's subjective these people were simply wrong.

My bolding above. Prove why they were objectively wrong, even if they thought they were right.

These are not an example of subjective morality they are examples of Amorality.

All you have done is give me a rather depressing history lesson of the depravity of man, you have not addressed the argument, unless by citing these examples you  agree that these culture are correct to think child rape and murder is right. If so we have another set of problems, that will hinder this debate namely Amorality.

Prove that they are examples of amorality. By whose authority would you call these examples objectively wrong? If all these people were objectively wrong, and you are right, you need to prove that.

My bolding above indicates that you are dangerously close to using a strawman (fallacy). Go back and read my posts. Did I say that these cultures were objectively correct or wrong to think child rape and murder is right? I said that morality is subjective, so it would be right to them, and wrong to me. Go back and read what I said.



This is now officially disturbing.

Again, an appeal to emotion. L-Chaim, use logic to back up what you are saying, or your arguments will go nowhere.


You cite instances from history that show these acts have taken place in a culture did not consider it wrong...my question is who is right us or them we cannot both be right. A proposition or declarative sentence cannot be true and false at the same time according to the law of non contradiction, child rape and murder is ALWAYS WRONG... Therefore its objective.

Your problem is that you are using circular reasoning. You are saying only one party can be objectively right morally. Then you say that child rape and murder is always (objectively) wrong, therefore it is objective. Your problem is that you assumed that objective moral values exist to begin with in that paragraph, in order to support your conclusion that it is objectively wrong to rape and murder a child. You were initially saying that it is objectively wrong to rape and murder a child as a premise, and your conclusion was that objective moral values exist. You just flipped around your premise and your conclusion in that paragraph.

Your view then takes a double standard, you were quick  to rush to the OT in your first post to try to show God to be a moral monster, but if morals are subjective and dependent on the zeitgeist then how can you make any moral judgment on anything that is not part of your own culture ? your argument fails to condemn child rape and murder but accepts it in the back door as a concession to that particular culture and zeitgeist while you maintain it is morally wrong in this culture, do you see the contradiction here ?

L-Chaim, what you don’t seem to understand is that I was illustrating the subjectivity of morality. When God asked Abraham to kill Isaac (if God had really wanted Abraham to go through with it), and Abraham had killed Isaac, he would have been a good and faithful (moral) servant to God, but an immoral person by your (and my) standards for killing a child.  I also have to ask: if you think child-killing is objectively wrong, why support a God who asked a man to kill his son and essentially went, “Psych!” at the last minute.

BTW, because morality is subjective, I am perfectly free to say that something is wrong to me, but it was right to a different culture, fictional god, etc. That is the nature of subjective morality. Different things are right to different cultures at different times.

So your argument fails the coherence test as the law of non contradiction is broken, because you want to keep to your correct view that child rape and murder are wrong but you dont want to concede this is a moral value for everyone. It either right or it's wrong...and those who think its right are wrong.

Again, you are incorrect because you are saying it is either right or wrong (period), implying objective morality. Objective morality does not exist, though. If you are going to make a claim that it does, prove it.

Seriously do you think child rape and murder is not inherently wrong !
I must admit i was not expecting this.

You need to dial down the emotions a few notches, and actually read what I am typing through the lens of logic. I have already answered your question.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline L-Chaim

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Darwins +3/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2011, 08:07:39 AM »

Prove that child rape and murder is objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong.

I can't believe i have to argue this point but i'll give evidence for it and you must disprove it.


My bolding above and below. You are using an appeal to emotion, more specifically an appeal to fear:

This fallacy has the following argument form:

Either P or Q is true.
Q is frightening.
Therefore, P is true.

The argument is invalid.


You have totally ignored my point about your argument and instead are trying to cling on to some weak logical fallacy, The point still stands un-refuted you have no moral ground to say child rape and murder is wrong to a majority group who want to implement this, you would have to follow the zeitgeist and accept their collective subjective moral standards that rape and murder is now fine ?

Prove that they are examples of amorality. By whose authority would you call these examples objectively wrong? If all these people were objectively wrong, and you are right, you need to prove that.

By the authority of most philosophers and ethicists in the world, they believe that objective moral values exist, you are in the minority and are rebelling from the standard so you have to prove your position...the rebel always have to prove his cause.  Prove its not wrong !


My bolding above indicates that you are dangerously close to using a strawman (fallacy). Go back and read my posts. Did I say that these cultures were objectively correct or wrong to think child rape and murder is right? I said that morality is subjective, so it would be right to them, and wrong to me. Go back and read what I said.

Not even close to a strawman,  what was the purpose in citing all these examples ?  if not to show that other cultures practiced these things and didn't see anything wrong with it ? you will have to state why you cited these references then.

(btw just because it happened doesn't mean they were happy about doing it, and thought it was moral)


This is now officially disturbing.

Again, an appeal to emotion. L-Chaim, use logic to back up what you are saying, or your arguments will go nowhere.

I do but you ignore it each and every time. look below


You cite instances from history that show these acts have taken place in a culture did not consider it wrong...my question is who is right us or them we cannot both be right. A proposition or declarative sentence cannot be true and false at the same time according to the law of non contradiction, child rape and murder is ALWAYS WRONG... Therefore its objective.

L-Chaim, what you don’t seem to understand is that I was illustrating the subjectivity of morality. When God asked Abraham to kill Isaac (if God had really wanted Abraham to go through with it), and Abraham had killed Isaac, he would have been a good and faithful (moral) servant to God, but an immoral person by your (and my) standards for killing a child. [/quote]

According to what standard ? on one hand you argue for the acceptance of collective subjective moral value system in which the society decides their own moral code and on the other hand you want to condemn another society as morally wrong ?

You can only condemn them if there is a standard of rightness and wrongness that transends individual opinion which you want to dismiss so you dont get to codemn any other society or people group, and if you do based on what grounds your own personal subjective moral values ? welll what about theirs ? who says who is good and whose is bad ?

Can you really not see the problem here ?

I also have to ask: if you think child-killing is objectively wrong, why support a God who asked a man to kill his son and essentially went, “Psych!” at the last minute.

As you have shown child sacrifice was common place in the ANE, you seem to be able to accept the actual killing of the children by envoking the subjective moral value card to that particular culture but when it comes to God not killing the a child you seem to have a problem ?

BTW, because morality is subjective, I am perfectly free to say that something is wrong to me, but it was right to a different culture, fictional god, etc. That is the nature of subjective morality. Different things are right to different cultures at different times.

Exactly ! so whats your problem with the above ? stop acting like there are objective moral values.

As a byproduct of your subjective moral values it means you dont get to call God a moral monster anymore are you really willing to give up that ?

Again, you are incorrect because you are saying it is either right or wrong (period), implying objective morality. Objective morality does not exist, though. If you are going to make a claim that it does, prove it.

five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. (taken from Shenvi)

1. The existence of objective moral values explains the near-universal existence of basic standards of morality, even those that disfavor personal or genetic benefit.

2. The existence of objective moral values explains why those who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists (like you Curiousgirl)
 
3.The existence of objective moral valeus explains the nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
 
4.The existence of objective moral values explains why the majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

5. The existence of objective moral values explains why naturalists (e.g. Sam Harris ot Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

Give your own evidence to why only subjective moral values exist. I'm not the only one claiming here.


Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: curiousgirl and L-Chaim: The (non)existence of Bible God
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2011, 10:34:24 AM »

I can't believe i have to argue this point but i'll give evidence for it and you must disprove it.

LC, you need to stop acting incredulous everytime someone disagrees with you.

You have totally ignored my point about your argument and instead are trying to cling on to some weak logical fallacy, The point still stands un-refuted you have no moral ground to say child rape and murder is wrong to a majority group who want to implement this, you would have to follow the zeitgeist and accept their collective subjective moral standards that rape and murder is now fine ?

My bolding above. LC, stop throwing a fit because I pointed out a fallacy in your argument. You never made your point to begin with because you don't seem to understand subjective morality. You keep talking like objective morality exists because it is too frightening or shocking for subjective morality to exist. That does not make a point. That is a fallacy. And yes, other cultures have believed child rape is right, and I believe it is wrong. That is the nature of subjective morality. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

By the authority of most philosophers and ethicists in the world, they believe that objective moral values exist, you are in the minority and are rebelling from the standard so you have to prove your position...the rebel always have to prove his cause.  Prove its not wrong !

You are using yet another fallacy: argument from authority. I need real evidence that objective morality exists.

Please stop using fallacies in your argument if you want to get your points across!

Not even close to a strawman,  what was the purpose in citing all these examples ?  if not to show that other cultures practiced these things and didn't see anything wrong with it ? you will have to state why you cited these references then.

LC, I already did state why I cited these references. They are examples of subjective morality, a concept which you seem to have a hard time grasping.

(btw just because it happened doesn't mean they were happy about doing it, and thought it was moral)


*Facepalm* So what are you trying to imply? That they were unhappy and they forced themselves to do something they thought was wrong? LC, I need proof.

I do but you ignore it each and every time. look below

LC, I need for your premise(s) to make sense before I accept it as true.

According to what standard ? on one hand you argue for the acceptance of collective subjective moral value system in which the society decides their own moral code and on the other hand you want to condemn another society as morally wrong ?

Again, something can be right to someone else and wrong to me. That is the nature of subjective morality. Every culture has their own standards for what is right. I gave clear examples of that. You just don’t seem to understand the concept of subjective morality.

You can only condemn them if there is a standard of rightness and wrongness that transends individual opinion which you want to dismiss so you dont get to codemn any other society or people group, and if you do based on what grounds your own personal subjective moral values ? welll what about theirs ? who says who is good and whose is bad ? ….
As you have shown child sacrifice was common place in the ANE, you seem to be able to accept the actual killing of the children by envoking the subjective moral value card to that particular culture but when it comes to God not killing the a child you seem to have a problem ?


That’s the point! Any culture can condemn or support whatever action they choose, as they have done throughout history! There is no objective right or wrong, but you keep arguing like there is, as if that is self-evident to everyone. It is not. People (in different times and cultures) have different opinions on what is good and bad.
Why would your Bible God be any more right than them? Even he (as a fictional character) has demonstrated that his morality is subjective, as I pointed out with Abraham and Isaac. If we don’t get to kill, why does he? He smote many in the Bible. Look at the Flood. Are you meaning to tell me that of the world population, only Noah’s family deserved to live? With regard to killing, it seems that God demonstrates “do as I say, not as I do,” and even his morality is therefore subjective. 

Exactly ! so whats your problem with the above ? stop acting like there are objective moral values.

*Facepalm* ERROR: Failure to communicate…
LC, I am acting like there are subjective moral values. You are failing to understand that.

As a byproduct of your subjective moral values it means you dont get to call God a moral monster anymore are you really willing to give up that ?

Strawman, LC. I am not calling God a moral monster. I am saying that even HIS morality is subjective. I was also asking YOU a question, which you failed to answer:

Quote
I also have to ask: if you think child-killing is objectively wrong, why support a God who asked a man to kill his son and essentially went, “Psych!” at the last minute.

five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. (taken from Shenvi)

1.The existence of objective moral values explains the near-universal existence of basic standards of morality, even those that disfavor personal or genetic benefit.

Prove it. I don’t see any “near-universal existence of basic standards of morality.” In fact, I have shown otherwise.

2. The existence of objective moral values explains why those who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists (like you Curiousgirl)

I never acted like objective morality exists. Again, a failure to communicate on your part. I have been supporting subjective morality the whole time.
Prove that those who claim subjective morality act as if objective morality still exists, if you want to keep that claim.

3.The existence of objective moral valeus explains the nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.

Prove that we have “the nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.” You have yet to give proof.
 
4.The existence of objective moral values explains why the majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

Another fallacy: argument from authority. Why don’t you give your own proof for the existence of objective moral facts?

5. The existence of objective moral values explains why naturalists (e.g. Sam Harris ot Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

OK, that just looks like regurgitated knowledge that you did not come up with on your own at all. The naturalists can “affirm the existence of objective moral facts” all they want, but YOU still need to provide your own logical reasons for the existence of objective moral values instead of hiding behind others.
Also, look at my bolding above. Are you trying to make your own argument fail?

Give your own evidence to why only subjective moral values exist. I'm not the only one claiming here.

I provided evidence. You are essentially saying, “Nuh-uh!”
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan