Morals are necessary truths and this proves God.

[Link]

(1) In no possible world can it be good to torture innocents forever for fun.
(2) A truth in all possible worlds, would mean that truth is necessary.
Therefore It cannot be good to torture innocents forever for fun is a necessary truth. (c1) (1 and 2)
(3) It's a safe assumption that one moral truth being necessary proves moral truths are necessary by nature.
(4) Moral truths require perception (are not material but requires assessment)
Therefore there is a Necessary perception (c2) (c1, 3 and 4)
(5) Only a living being can have perception
Therefore a Necessary living being exists (c3) (c2 and 5)

Somethings to be said about a Necessary being. It can't lack any life or some possible world can exist without it but that's refuted by it being Necessary. If it lacked any greatness than it would lack life substance, but it's maximum in that, and hence this is God.

 

[night912]

The biggest problem with your argument is that the conclusion does not follow the premises. You went from, "morals are necessary, therefore god."

 

[SalixIncendium]

(1) In no possible world can it be good to torture innocents forever for fun.
(2) A truth in all possible worlds, would mean that truth is necessary.
Therefore It cannot be good to torture innocents forever for fun is a necessary truth. (c1) (1 and 2)
(3) It's a safe assumption that one moral truth being necessary proves moral truths are necessary by nature.
(4) Moral truths require perception (are not material but requires assessment)
Therefore there is a Necessary perception (c2) (c1, 3 and 4)
(5) Only a living being can have perception
Therefore a Necessary living being exists (c3) (c2 and 5)

Somethings to be said about a Necessary being. It can't lack any life or some possible world can exist without it but that's refuted by it being Necessary. If it lacked any greatness than it would lack life substance, but it's maximum in that, and hence this is a Unicorn.​

Do you see the problem with your "proof."

 

[rational experiences]

Notify by human mind thoughts first.

Human in presence first natural with God.

One statements only allowed as all first. The first he quoted as a man.

O earth a first.
It's heavens one mass is first.

Man human he says is first.

Looks at woman we two in one status first and equal.

As unlike woman he is thinking abstract to just existing.

Imposes hence I speak on behalf of natural. God terms.

Is the same human who theories inventive science.

Irradiated spirit gases burnt extra fell out.

As saviour wandering sun star mass changed

A human man teaching.

That said I was morally equal when God was one first.

I changed Gods nature by Sion fission now I paid for conjured evils. Lost my morality spirituality.

Now I must teach think how to control my mind then regain my natural morality.

It was my own fault.

Fault. Tectonic earthquake carpenter activated.

Reason fault was mans. Reason he named a fault tectonic earthquake was also caused by man. At the end.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The biggest problem with your argument is that the conclusion does not follow the premises. You went from, "morals are necessary, therefore god."

I think the thread was never about discussing morals in the first place, but everything about God.

 

[F1fan]

(1) In no possible world can it be good to torture innocents forever for fun.
(2) A truth in all possible worlds, would mean that truth is necessary.
Therefore It cannot be good to torture innocents forever for fun is a necessary truth. (c1) (1 and 2)
(3) It's a safe assumption that one moral truth being necessary proves moral truths are necessary by nature.
(4) Moral truths require perception (are not material but requires assessment)
Therefore there is a Necessary perception (c2) (c1, 3 and 4)
(5) Only a living being can have perception
Therefore a Necessary living being exists (c3) (c2 and 5)

Somethings to be said about a Necessary being. It can't lack any life or some possible world can exist without it but that's refuted by it being Necessary. If it lacked any greatness than it would lack life substance, but it's maximum in that, and hence this is God.

There is nothing wrong with seeing yourself as your own authority to make moral decisions. After all, atheists get away with it and the consequences are a great life.

 

[sayak83]

(1) In no possible world can it be good to torture innocents forever for fun.
(2) A truth in all possible worlds, would mean that truth is necessary.
Therefore It cannot be good to torture innocents forever for fun is a necessary truth. (c1) (1 and 2)
(3) It's a safe assumption that one moral truth being necessary proves moral truths are necessary by nature.
(4) Moral truths require perception (are not material but requires assessment)
Therefore there is a Necessary perception (c2) (c1, 3 and 4)
(5) Only a living being can have perception
Therefore a Necessary living being exists (c3) (c2 and 5)

Somethings to be said about a Necessary being. It can't lack any life or some possible world can exist without it but that's refuted by it being Necessary. If it lacked any greatness than it would lack life substance, but it's maximum in that, and hence this is God.

There can be worlds without living things at all. Therefore such worlds have no moral truths whatsoever. Therefore moral truths do not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore moral truths are not necessarily existent.

Next?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think this might fall apart if one was to actually believe in our origins - as to evolution through the Hominid line - since we suddenly seemed to have acquired morals and where many see none in non-humans (even if such does exist to some extent, and related to their lives), such that where is the necessity when all we have is our development along with the evolution of our moral nature? And such not having any objective existence but purely subjective - as to what works for humans. When did the 'necessity' arise?

 

[Twilight Hue]

There can be worlds without living things at all. Therefore such worlds have no moral truths whatsoever. Therefore moral truths do not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore moral truths are not necessarily existent.

Next?

I wonder what morality is to a rock?

 

[Link]

There can be worlds without living things at all. Therefore such worlds have no moral truths whatsoever. Therefore moral truths do not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore moral truths are not necessarily existent.

Next?

Hmmm... Yeah I didn't think of this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(1) In no possible world can it be good to torture innocents forever for fun.
(2) A truth in all possible worlds, would mean that truth is necessary.
Therefore It cannot be good to torture innocents forever for fun is a necessary truth. (c1) (1 and 2)
(3) It's a safe assumption that one moral truth being necessary proves moral truths are necessary by nature.
(4) Moral truths require perception (are not material but requires assessment)
Therefore there is a Necessary perception (c2) (c1, 3 and 4)
(5) Only a living being can have perception
Therefore a Necessary living being exists (c3) (c2 and 5)

And that "necessary being" is the being to which morality is applicable. In this case: humans.

Humans are the "necessary beings".
Without humans, there's no such thing as human morality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm... Yeah I didn't think of this.

That's what happens when you desperately seek ways to paint the bullseye around the arrow....