Rich

Next time, please:
A. Justify the removal of emotion, empathy and social interaction, from your definition of morality,
B. Explain how the purpose, or goal, of your special morality, that leads to the “ought that supersede all other oughts” can be known, without having the advantage of omniscience?

As before, your diversion says more about you, than it says about me, or anything I have said. It adds zero value to your paper, and it prevents you from dealing with the fact that your paper is based on a self-serving, manufactured, premise that renders it worthless.

Happy New Year!

You have NOT provided an actual moral fact (or OMT) as requested.

You were not asked whether OMTs were possible.

Your paper talks about your redefined morality and how, in accordance with that definition, your version of OMTs, are possible.

All of it is correct.
The theist redefines immorality as: sin (activity, contrary to the wishes of a character in a book).
You redefine morality, as I have described, in a way that removes, among other things, empathy. And you have defined your Objective Moral Truths into a theoretical existence.

Your paper is very clear about what you consider morality to be.

Why not engage in discussion, honestly rather than resorting to rudeness? Is your rudeness designed to prevent you from having to face the possibility (reality) that you have misrepresented morality in the way I have described?

Why are people's memories so short?

You have forgotten what morality is.
You have created an imaginary, logical ethic, and decided to call it “morality.”

An outcome of your “morality” is an imaginary OMT.

Which demonstrates that you don't actually know what morality is. You have redefined it for the purposes of your argument: using an imaginary logical ethic owned by imaginary “rational agents,” to support your claim that OMTs exist. You have effectively defined your imaginary OMTs, into existence.

It is interesting that in order to claim that morality is proof of the existence of God, a theist must redefine morality in their own terms. And in order to debunk theist claims, you found the need to redefine morality in YOUR own terms.

Both arguments define their own conclusions into existence.

It would be impossible for the paper to provide one of your actual moral facts (or OMTs), unless the author was one of your imaginary “rational agents.”

Nice definition, but you are not describing actual morality, you are describing your own, idealised version, which is significant departure from the real thing.
Telling me that I am talking rot, doesn’t help anyone, and frankly, it says more about you than it says about me, or anything I’ve said.

Are you denying that your paper addresses: “The question of whether a God is needed to justify or ground moral facts?”

Or are you denying that: “There are objective moral truths, therefore God must exist,” is a reasonable representation of claims that you argue are moot?

I would love you to provide an actual moral fact to support your claim that moral facts exist.

I never said that your paper mentioned genetics. I merely pointed out the fact that the imperatives or goals of your “rational agents" would be unlikely to survive unless the species benefited from them.
I don't expect you to mention something that doesn't help your position.

Of course you did, you created them in your own image. How else would you know what their goals are?
Your goals are their goals.

Addendum:
In attempt to disprove the claim:

“There are objective moral truths, therefore God must exist.”

You have turned it around and are effectively saying:

“I exist, therefore there are objective moral truths.”

Sure, if the imperatives of your rational agent were different, it is less likely that they would pass on their genes. But this doesn't help your position. All it tells us is that the “informal social contract between social beings" is a bi-product of evolution.
2/2

Your formal proof is flawed. It relies on the concept of a rational agent, that you have subjectively chosen to create in your own image.

Now where have we seen that before?
1/2

There aren't any moral facts.

There are strong opinions.
There are consensuses.

Without moral facts, morality can only be informal.

Morality is just an informal social contract between social beings.

And the looser has blocked me.🤣🤣🤣

What a silly thing to say.
Mathematics is a man made convention. The "proofs" are only valid, in accordance with the convention. If we exist in a simulation then the simulation is where the convention arose, and exists.

Why would I need to prove that we aren't in a simulation? It is irrelevant.

Indeed I do.
We have a consensus of subjectivity.😁

Morality IS subjective, and will remain so, until the first time that an objective moral fact is demonstrated.

I didn't say that you couldn't decide to call it morality. That is your subjective opinion. I'm OK with that. Are you?

Please clarify: Who has decided to call the evolved behaviours of individuals in the pack, "moral" or "immoral?"
Is it you, or the wolves?

You can beg all you like.

You were asked: "What is an objective reason why any animal necessarily must care about morality?"
You gave a subjective reason.
You failed.

And you talk about vacuous posts.🤦‍♂️

It is inappropriate given the context of the question you were attempting to answer.

Bye!😁

You just defined immorality as: "selfishness at the expense of others." What reason can you give, that makes your subjective opinion that your definition is appropriate: objectively correct?