Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:

Someone wrote: "The reason I used the gnomes example" Jeez, dude -- get off the gnomes! That side-discussion proved my side, not yours anyway. ""I already anticipated this, and if you want, we can go with "living gnomes," because I'm sure that you and I can agree that, unlike Home Depot gnomes (which are not living but do exist and are constructed from plaster and paint), living gnomes actually do not exist." As my opponent has shown with this example of "living gnomes" you can tumble this proof by simply stating "living gnomes do not actually exist so no human being could possibly observe them". " It doesn't "tumble" the proof -- it supports it. "The same can be done with "moral ideals"." Actually, my argument proves that moral ideas do exist objectively. "1. Formation of subjective opinions requires non-fabricated data about the Actual Thing in Question (ATQ). (Any opinions formed independent of non-fabricated data about the ATQ would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). 2. Non-fabricated data about the ATQ requires valid observation of the ATQ. (Without valid observation of the ATQ, any data compiled would necessarily be fabricated). 3. Valid observation of the ATQ requires the objective existence of the ATQ. (If the ATQ lacked objective existence, then any observation in which one may engage would necessarily be of some other thing, and not of the ATQ). 4. Some persons possess subjective opinions about moral ideals." No they don't:" Yes they do. " moral ideals do not actually exist" Yes they do: Some people think abortion is morally wrong, while others think abortion is morally right. Those are two moral ideals that definitely exist. ", so no human being could possibly observe them." Yes we can. " Observation of the ATQ would be required in order to form a subjective opinion about the ATQ because if the ATQ is not observed, then any subjective opinion formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the ATQ). Therefore nobody actually has any subjective opinions about moral ideals" Yes we do. "we can not possibly have any subjective opinions about moral ideals." Yes we can. 5". Therefore, subjective opinions about moral ideals exist." True. 6. "Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist." Also true. 7." Therefore, valid observation of moral ideals exists." Again, that is true. 8. "Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively." You are correct: Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you! =) "the argument doesn't prove that existent things exist" Yes it does. "This is the flaw in the proof." You have failed to point out any actual "flaw" in the proof. In fact, you have provided support that the proof is true, valid, and sound. " The proof cannot be used to prove existing things exist and cannot be used to prove that non-existing things do not exist." Yes it can. You yourself already used it to prove at least three things according to the parameters of the proof. "My opponent states "In actual debate, the burden of proof rests equally on both parties, not just one." I do no agree with this," Neither does the pig, but yours and the pig's ignorance of the facts has no effect on the facts. "The only thing the Contender would need to do to show the proof invalid is point out flaws in the proof itself" That is not true, and in addition, you have not accomplished that anyway. If your silly assertion that the burden of proof was always 100% on the Pro side were true, then anyone who wanted to "win" any debate on the Con side would merely have to show up and fart (which is basically all that you have done here, so far, BTW), but that is ludicrous! Also, all I would have to do in order to "win" this debate would be to re-word it to place myself on the Con side, and then say nothing at all, and according to your silly and incorrect claim, I would thereby "win" the debate. You are nothing but an ignorant charlatan, and the only reason you posit the above silly fantasy is that you know damn well that you are wrong and therefore have no actual chance of winning the debate. Stop farting and start proving your side with evidence instead -- all you have managed to do so far is to provide evidence in favor of my side. "The subject is the proof named "Proof of God Via Subjective Morality:" in the subject and I have shows the flaws in that proof:" No you haven't. "The fact that the proof can be refuted in the same way that my opponent has refuted that proof when it was used to prove the existence of living gnomes shows the (second) flaw mentioned here." Actually, using my argument to disprove the existence of living gnomes demonstrates that my argument is valid, not that it is invalid -- because living gnomes actually do not exist. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)