Appeal to Nature and Fantasy Projection?

I don't see those fallacies. Perhaps you can explain how you are seeing those here?

The problem most people have with this argument (who have a problem with this argument) is with the soundness due to rejecting either or both premises.

My first issue was with the second premise. It seemed like it was implying that because they think some things are just naturally wrong, they must be morally wrong. My other issue was that even if all these things were deemed immoral I still don't see how that is confirmation of God's existence. As for the fantasy projection I don't actually see that now.

[To Jack]

It seems to me that your stated questions are inherently about the very basis of "right" and "wrong", and whether these polar opposites can exist in a person's consciousness without their being rooted in an understanding of a Divine Being.  You also raise the notion of an "objective" appreciation of right and wrong;  my feeling is that when it comes to human affairs, by its very nature the decision-making is wholly subjective.

I wouldn't try to argue that. It is quite a stretch, IMO.

I agree with Dr. Bo that the real problem is soundness. P1 is not demonstratively true. P2 may  be false as well if viewed through the lens of "cultural relativism."

No fallacies here. The question is how to define morality and if it is objective or subjective. You would need to prove either one first.

That's an obvious fallacy, though I'm not sure what the best (most familiar) name of it is.

This article calls it an Argument from Moral Authority -- https://atheism.wikia.org/wiki/Argument_fom_Absolute_Morality

I think naturalistic fallacy might be either an alias or a related fallacy.

Here's where a page where some Wikipedians are thrashing it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AArgument_from_morality

One of the biggest debates in philosophy regards the existence of God. Is she real, or is she just a figment of people's imagination?

At the same time, philosophers ask WHAT is God? Some people believe the entire universe is God. We're all a part of God.

If I'm not mistaken, this is called naturalism. In philosophy, a person who doesn't believe in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god but instead looks to Nature as a source of morality is called a naturalist (I think).

Deists (religious folks), naturalists and atheists have been creating all kinds of clever arguments to make their case forever.

Consider the argument you posted, beginning with the first premise:

What it basically says is that only God can give us "objective" moral values (whatever that means). Thus, if God doesn't exist, objective moral values cannot exist.

The second premise says objective moral values DO exist, proving that God exists. It cites murder, rape and child abuse as intrinsic moral values.

3. Therefore, God exists.

These kinds of arguments can be really complex and confusing and tend to go over my head a bit. But I think the problem with this argument lies in its focus on objective moral values.

When it calls murder an "intrinsic moral value," it appears to be saying that murder is so obviously wrong that every person instinctively knows it. Therefore, it must be an instinct we were given by God.

Reality check: People have been killing each other for thousands of years. Thousands of years ago, they killed each other over natural resources. If someone was encroaching on your hunting grounds, you killed him.

You can see the same thing play out in countless videos on YouTube which show a variety of predators (lions, hyenas, crocodiles, etc.) killing competitors. Humans, believe it or not, are predators.

Today, we're more civilized - which is why we drop atomic bombs on people. One of the big ironies is that Christian conservatives are the very people who cheer loudest for war.

Rape and child abuse? I don't condone them - but the U.S. military sure does. Blowing up hospitals, schools and ambulances and raping people is a great way to terrorize people and cow them into submission. Do some research on the U.S. military's sexcapades in the Middle East. It's pretty disgusting.

So, going back to square one, we might start by asking if objective moral values exist. Actually, we should first define the term: What IS an objective moral value?

If we understand what an objective moral value is and agree that it exists, then we can proceed to ask where it came from. Is it something that simply evolved, or is it possible that it came from some invisible creature who lives in the sky?

Keep in mind that humans are very social animals, and a variety of social customs and morals are indeed a part of our evolutionary heritage. Thus, most people do have an instinctive aversion to murder...but that applies primarily to their families, neighbors, etc. Killing the competition is another story.

I would argue that "the existence of moral values" doesn't fit one's subjective experience, a necessary factor of fantasy projection . The setup to the Narggles example makes it more clear this conclusion is a result of personal experience. I don't think theists who use the moral argument for God say anything about personal experience, but attempt to use logic or philosophy to make the necessary connection between God and objective moral values. By all means, if one does claim that objective moral values from God exist because one experienced them, then fantasy projection away!

1. The example with Narggles says "We know Narggles exist because Narggles are the ones that give us the confidence to make decisions." Nowhere in this sentence is said or implied that the person who says that had a personal experience with Narggles. The same happens with "We know God exist because God is the one that gives us the ability to make moral decisions".
   
   In both cases the argument is that we can CONCLUDE the existence, not that we WITNESSED it (otherwise they would say "we know because we SAW, HEAR, TALKED, FELT them". And even if for the sake of conversation we take that it is implied and I missed it, I don't see how in the Narggles example the conclusion of "decision making" is any more a result of personal experience than in the God and "moral decision making" example.
   
   Actually I don't know how one could have a personal experience with Narggles any more than with a "personal experience" with God or any other magical creature. It's also not true that theists use logic to make connection between God and moral values. They explicitly say that God TOLD them (or at least spoke to some prophet or another medium) what is moral and what's not - there's not any philosophy or logic in that, just personal experience (at least for the medium that communicated with God). And people actually do believe that Gods have magical powers that aren't explained with logic or philosophy. There's nothing new or subjective in what I say here.
2. Let's assume that the person saying that
   " We know Narggles exist because Narggles are the ones that give us the confidence to make decisions. " didn't have a personal experience with Narggles, the same way someone who says
   " We know God exist because God is the one that gives us the ability to make moral decisions " didn't have a personal experience with God.
   Is there a fallacy in that sentence, apart from Begging the Question?
3. The people in various religions (who actually believe their bullshit, not those who consciously lie) who "spoke" to God and God told them what are the objective moral values, is an example of fantasy projection then?
   PS: I would include in that set those who are generally called prophets but since it's not that much of a free world, let's stick to just "people who god spoke to them and revealed them the moral values".

The full example actually begins with "We are all surrounded by Narggles. These are spiritual beings who help us through life." This is meant to imply personal experience. Perhaps I can be clearer in the language.

I think it would be better, because the same can be told about spirits or gods (even if we don't interact with them).

What about the rest of my questions?

#2 I think begging the question is blatant enough. If I went through the who list, I can probably find a couple others that can be argued, but I usually find the most obvious one and argue that.

#3 Yes. Turning their personal experience to objective truths. However, I know theists who claim to talk to God would argue against this. They would say is like talking to a mathematician and the mathematician revealing an objective mathematical truth. They would reject the claim that their communication was a fantasy.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Those theists who claim to talk to God, usually they talk to themselves - they don't talk to God and usually God don't reply to them. But when he does, it is definitely a case of hallucination (drug induced or psychosis). 
People who believe in Narggles may also talk to Narggles (getting eventually the confidence to decide correctly and having many such anecdotal "epiphanies") and they would equally argue against characterizing their experience as fantasy. They would also say their story is like talking to a (Narggle) mathematician and learning an objective mathematical truth. Only that a true mathematician would really speak to them and would prove what he'd say, not use anecdotal evidence or CONFIRMATION BIAS.

And my next question is: fantasy needs to involve hallucinations or does confirmation bias also count as fantasy? Hearing a random noise or a coincidental event after "talking" (post hoc ergo propter hoc) to the magical creature of preference and then interpreting it as "response" from that being (i,e CONFIRMATION BIAS) qualifies as fantasy or does it have to hear voices and/or see visions?  

I know of no strict definition that limits a fantasy to psychosis, so I would go with the common definition "the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable."