If evil exists, God exists

Yeah, but the fact that aztec, chinese, yanomami and hundreds of other societies existing that were actually quite immoral on our standards proves it [that morality is subjective]

Does it? Different moral codes can be explained through other factors:
(1) Factual errors: some Muslims deny that women have human righrs, because they believe women have no souls. They recognize the value of human beings, but have a factual error on the nature of women.
(2) Same principle, different application: Japanese people thank everyone involved in the final result of their meal; Christins thank God for the whole process. In both cases, they thank for food that didn't have to exist.

It is not "good" it's just that some moral values let societies be more successful and happy, this means society will keep these ones over others. In return we evolve emotionally to this, if we did not society would stop growing. Similar to how genetically shit species might die off, a society with shit morals will become dysfunctional and limit it's growth.

>(6) Morality is a rational enterprise.
>(7) Rationality implies self-awareness
nigga no

(3) Diversity does not equal subjectivity: just because people disagree on what is true or false doesn't mean truth is subjective, whether on descriptions or prescriptions.
(4) Ignorance doesn't equal subnectivity: sometimes people don't even know what is true or right, but that doesn't show subjectivity either.

Point is, questioning the moral quality behind evolutionary success is always meaningful questioning, which couldn't be the case if we define morally good as evolutionary success.

On the other hand, if what truly happens is that we discover morality through evolutionary trial and error, then you're just making a claim on moral epistemology instead moral ontology.

Morality is discovered by reasoning, comparing certain ideas with the moral standard in our conscience. That can only be possible if I choose to do it, and choosing implies I'm aware of myself and what I'm doing.

Diversity and ignorance don't directly equate to subjectivity, but do equate to one of these three
1.a) Either we are right, and other cultures are ignorant
1.b) Either we are ignorant, and some other culture is right
And you have to make a completely subjective leap of faith as to which you want to believe.

There is also a second way of looking of course
2) It is really subjective - as you yourself argued, ignorance and diversity do not equate to subjectivity, but that does not exclude the possibility that morality really is subjective

Concluding, either morality is objective, but due to no access to it, you need to make a subjective leap of faith on which morality you believe to be the most correct

OR

Morality is indeed subjective and you can or can not make a subjective leap of faith to apply it

Regardless of what you choose, its just a choice and completely crippled by ignorance. If we were to put it in TL;DR terms it would be more or less like this:
>Christfags won't be right untill their kyke God himself appears on live television and proves without a shadow of a doubt that he is the real God with an upper case G

Untill then, OP is a christcuck buttmad that the West doesn't care about muh jesus anymore

Yes God exists. However your rationalise it He is alive and active.

I don't have to make a leap of faith if I can rationalize my way into morality, and realize that (c) we were both wrong or (d) there is no logical contradiction between us.

Also, I never made a case for Christianity. All I said can be used for a case in favor of Christianity, Judaism, Islam or non-religious monotheism.

Yeah moral realists tend to be predictable and come with the whole "I'm not even christian" argument, whilst literally providing all sorts of rationalizations which are easily appropriated by anyone with agenda. It's not that you are or not a christfag, but for all christcucks reading this thread and who would likely read a TL;DR version of a counterargument, a harsh point must be made

Also, your c) and d) options will have consequences that I am unsure if you would find palatable. You'd have to accept for instance that either murder is not a moral issue (c) or that since both you and yanomami at least agree that murdering outsiders and raping their wives as long as they are not blood related to you is not a moral issue, as we both only agree that killing in-tribe is something immoral.

I mean, your mental gymnastics are completely acceptable, but you have to think of their consequences on what morality you are making, and if that morality (stemming from god) would really suit your emotional sensibilities

When parties A and B hold different moral views there are four different outcomes: (a) A is right and B is wrong (which implies A and B hold logically opposite views), (b) A is wrong and B is right (same implication than before), (c) both A and B are wrong (which implies they don't hold opposite views), (d) both A and B are right (same implication than before).

Either way, the argument from evil doesn't require to define evil as long as we agree that evil is real.

...

Still there is no rational argument for evil being real so we are back at stake one

Arguments for evil NOT being real though would be on the non-universality of the concept of "evil", which instead of taking us to stake one would take us only to my first post - evil might be subjective, evil might not be subjective, etc...

The only way you can get away with your OP is through the assumption of an axiom. If you do, fine, your reasoning might be acceptable on strictly logical grounds. Still, anyone could deny the axiom and basically call you out on your shit.

>(1) Evil behavior is real.
Define "evil behavior", and prove and objective evil exists
Until then this is based on fallacy

The non-universality of evil is less of a moral ontology issue and more of a moral epistemology one, so it doesn't work well to disprove moral realism.

Given that moral realism is a basic metaphysical belief that holds together by Ockham's razor, it's skepticism mist be accompanied by more than just mere possibility.

What an absolutely abhorrent post

>(4) Morality is trascendent to the physical world. That is, it's timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
Lmao

Moral realism is a basic metaphysical belief. Its questioning must rely in more than unjustified doubt.

I hope you agree with me that burning babies to death is wrong anywhere, anytime.

Muslims just believe that women are inherently less potentially good as men. That's how it works, woman was made from the rib of man. Read Genesis.

I said some Muslims, not all of them.

And H2 O is water, anywhere, anytime. Doesn't make water trascendent to the physical world.

Plato disagrees, considering that such statement is true anywhere, anytime.

>he hasn't read Kripke

(1) Kind of; relative.
(3) Evolution
(4) Stems from physical world for purely material profit.
(5) Happens to exist due to laws of nature.
(6) It's a tradition, little rational there.
(8) Part of any human indoctrinated into morality.
(9) Morality is copied by society like a meme virus.
(10) Society.
(11) You're full of shit.

Non-universality of the concept of "evil" was what I meant, as Nietzsche discusses in The Genealogy Of Morals

There is no reason to assume "evil" exists as a concept, as there are cultures who classify the world in "better/worse" "good/bad" instead of "good/evil". And those are different concepts, and their difference is actually a great difference in the pertinent subject matter (god)

(1) Elaborate.
(3) Evolution is a process explanation, not an origin explanation.
(4) Disagree. Morality cannot have a material origin since it's a rational enterprise.
(5) Laws or nature describe the natural world, they don't cause things.
(6) Concluding certain behaviors are wrong is a rational act of the will.
(8) Humans are physical beings at least partially, so they cannot be the ground for morality. Moreover, that fails to explain why people keep failing to live up to moral duties.
(9) See (8).
(10) See (8).
(11) I'm just bored, and void of materialism and naturalism.

If god exists why there are niggers?

who the fuck else is going to shine my shoes?

Good/bad, good/evil, moral/immoral refer to the same concepts regardless of culture or phrasing. But even if they referred to different things, that doesn't make a case against moral realism at all. It just shows that people hold different concepts.

...

It is impossible for two words in different languages even point to the same concept when it comes to concrete objects, let alone for them to point to the same abstraction, specially when the two cultures that speak each language have developed independently

Saying morality is discovered by reasoning is something else entirely than saying morality is a rational enterprise and that rationality implies self-awareness so I don't know why you bring it up.

Still. That only shows that people hold different concepts, which says nothing about moral realism.

I mean the same thing: people use reason to discover morality, which is something they do out of their will, which requires self-awareness.

It's hard to find a single step in here that logically follows the other.

Or:
1. Accept the axiom that the presence of pleasure is good and the presence of pain is bad.

No God required.

(1) Evil is objectively speaking not real.
(4) Morality is very much depended on physical things like a brain, and a society that forms it. Different individuals, and different societies develop different kinds of morality.

>Evil behavior is real.
Evil is an entirely subjective word. It can't be used as the basis for an axiom in proving god exists. Actually, from a purely deterministic point of view, evil does not exist at all, only random action.
>Therefore morality is real
morality is real because humans value it, not because it is inherent
>Therefore morality requires a ground for its existence
there are opposing forms of morality. again, entirely subjective.
>Morality is trascendent to the physical world. That is, it's timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
Prove it.
>Morality is a rational enterprise.
What? Where is this coming from? Does it help our society? yes. Is it purely rational? No.
>Rationality implies self-awareness.
No it doesn't. Rationality is based on logic, which exists in a pure form whether someone is there to observe it or not.
>Therefore morality is part of a self-aware entity.
See above. Also, even if what you say is true, it isn't necessarily true.
>Therefore morality is grounded on a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, metaphysically necessary, rational, self-aware entity.
The entity doesn't have to be timeless, it only has to have to ability to establish those rules.
>We call this entity God.
who?

All you're doing is claiming, with no basis at all, that your morality is most common, therefore right. You're appealing to so many logical fallacies its ridiculous. Morality is subjective. Period.

>Factual errors: some Muslims deny that women have human righrs, because they believe women have no souls

You christcucks are fucking retarded.

>(3) Therefore morality requires a ground for its existence, whether on metaphysical necessity (it cannot not exist) or an external cause.
>(4) Morality is trascendent to the physical world. That is, it's timeless, spaceless and immaterial.
lmao

>Morality is real cause most people believe in it
>b-but those other people are wrong and have the wrong interpretation of morality
b-but its still totally universal y-yeah
>saying its subjective based on the fact that other people don't agree with it is wrong but saying its objective because "most" people believe in it (even though they don't) is totally not a logical leap XD

Not even that, the Quran says at different occassions that men have more rights, because they also have more responsibilities. It has nothing to do with women having no soul, how the hell somebody can come up with this kind of bullshit baffles me. Women have to pray, fast, pilger, don't commit sins, etc., too.

Even if you define evil as the quality of bringing pain, which ought not to be done, it ultimately follows that God exists. This argument is grounded on moral realism, which means that it works as long as there is behavior that ought not to be done.

Your response is based on materialism. You're saying that morality is ultimately something our brains are determined to bring up by blindly obeying the laws of nature. It might be, but such a metaphysical worldview requires me to put up with certain assumptions and contradictions I can't help but reject.

This is such an infantile waste of effort. You can't prove anything about reality thru mathematics or logic, those are just games of symbol manipulation. You can use math to model reality, but you can't do this the other way round.

(1) You're OP
(2) Therefore you're a faggot

>Evil is an entirely subjective word.
Elaborate. How come do you reject moral realism?
>From a purely deterministic point of view
Obviously morality and determinism are logically opposites. That's why I reject the latter.
>Morality is real because humans value it
Despite being unable to live up to it.
>There are opposing forms of morality.
Diversity of thought doesn't imply subjectivity.
>Prove morality trascends the physical world.
Burning babies to death is evil. Anywhere. Anytime.
>Where is this coming from?
People compare behavior to their conscience, and make a moral conclusion.
>Rationality is based on logic.
You can't reason unless you're aware that you're reasoning.

I'm not claiming I got it right and everyone else wrong. All I'm saying is that the existence of evil implies God exists.

Strawman much? I didn't say morality exists because we believe so, or that I'm right and everyone else wrong. I haven't even made an argument for what is good or evil.

Then why are you trying to prove I'm really wrong using logic?

>You can't prove anything about reality thru mathematics or logic

That's a good job as mathematically speaking there is close to zero logic in OP's post.