Fallaneze

Objective morality is the view that statements like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" are FACTS rather than opinions. Through rational intuition we know this to be a fact. So unless shown otherwise, objective morality is the status quo.

Free will means that you could've chosen otherwise. We believe that we can take alternative courses of action, so unless shown otherwise, free will is the status quo.

God, in the most basic sense, is a fundamental consciousness. Many philosophical arguments favor the existence of God. These include:

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from fine-tuning 

Prime mover

Natural telos (ends/purpose in the universe)

Moral realism

Etc.

Scientific evidence, from quantum mechanics, has also emerged showing that reality is indeterminate unless consciousness is observing/participating in it.

Purpose in the universe, or natural telos, is evident. Ask yourself if your heart has a purpose. Of course it does. The purpose of the heart is to pump oxygenated blood throughout the body. The only way a body structure like that could have purpose is if it has an intelligent designer (goals, like pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body, require intent -- to reach the goal, and knowledge -- of the goal itself).

For the purpose of this thread, "objective morality" is the position that some moral propositions, like "killing someone without sufficient justification is morally wrong" are *factually* true. If morality is subjective, all moral propositions, such as the one mentioned above, can only be an opinion-based truth (not a fact-based truth.)

Love.

A test of character where our animal nature is pitted against our rational nature. A quest for self-expression. Discovering"God." To know good from evil. Redemption?

Here are just some of the errors atheists commonly make:

If religion (X) is false, God doesn't exist.

Is you can't prove God does exist, God does not exist.

Atheism is just a lack of belief that a God exists.

Atheism isn't a worldview.

There is no evidence of God.

Atheism doesn't entail any implications. It's just lacking belief in God.

Anti-theism, not atheism, is the belief God doesn't exist.

Science evidences atheism.

You can't prove a negative.

It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer. 

Reality is comprised of mental properties. Mental properties are features that only exist within your consciousness. Some examples of mental properties include colors (red, blue, yellow, etc.), textures, sizes, shapes, weight, tastes, sounds, and anything else that you can observe. Anything that you can observe is represented by an assimilation of mental properties that have no independent existence. We have no reason to believe that there's any feature of observable reality that doesn't depend on consciousness in order to exist. This should make you question your assumption that consciousness emerged from the material world. The material world's very existence depends on consciousness. The better assumption is that consciousness is fundamental and the material world is just a manifestation of consciousness.

Is it true that the more educated you become, the less inclined you are to believe that God exists? What is your level of education and do you believe that God exists?

[1] Decipher the most basic difference between theism and atheism.

[2] Define the word "God" in a way that would satisfy the minimally required difference between theism and atheism so that if one were true, the other would be false.

[3] Establish whether the atheist :

(A) neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God or

(B) whether the atheist disbelieves in God, as they cannot hold both positions simultaneously.

If the atheist is in group (A), then they don't have a stance on the issue that would require any rational justification as to whether God does or does not exist. If they had a rational justification for believing that God does not exist, then this would warrant disbelief and the atheist would not be in group (A) because in order to be in group (A) the atheist must *not disbelieve* in the existence of God. If the atheist has rationally justified grounds for believing that God does not exist, but has no rationally justified grounds for believing God DOES exist, and the atheist still considers themselves to be in group (A), then they are irrational. It is irrational to have evidence supporting disbelief and no evidence supporting belief while still neither believing nor disbelieving the in the existence of God since the most rational approach is to base your beliefs on the preponderance of the evidence.

Since the atheist in group (A) has no evidence against God's existence, any amount of evidence indicative of God's existence would rationally justify belief that theism is true and consequently, that atheism is false. In this instance, any amount of evidence would rationally justify belief in God's existence because the evidence would be net positive. 

If the atheist is in group (B), they have a burden of proof to show why disbelief in God is rationally warranted. They must provide evidence against the existence of God. If the evidence against God is greater than the evidence in support of God, disbelief is rationally warranted. 

[4] the theist must provide the evidence that supports their view, and, if the atheist is in group (B), they must also provide the evidence that supports their view too.

[5] depending on the preponderance of evidence provided in the previous step, this will determime whether believing the claim is rationally warranted or not, or, depending on whether the atheist in group (B) provides counter-evidence, whether disbelief is rationally warranted.

Why or why not?

Be skeptical of theism AND atheism. Too many atheists are skeptical of one only side, theism, and not the other, atheism.

I'm doing a poll.

I've frequented discussion boards for a long time and the number of atheists always outnumbers the number of theists. Why is this? Is it because atheism is inherently a position of skepticism while theism is generally a position of faith (and therefore no further questioning is necessary?) I think it's a shame.

Anyone up for debating your beliefs about the existence of God?

Do you have a position at all on whether there's an intelligent creator of the universe?

This should make you question whether reality is real.

Matt Dillahunty, host of "The Atheist Experience", said that the fine-tunedness of the universe was evidence of God but was not "sufficient" evidence of God.

If there's no evidence against God, but there is evidence for God, the claim "God exists" is more likely true than not. How is that not sufficient to warrant belief that the claim is true?

God is defined as a fundamental consciousness.

(A) it is true that a fundamental consciousness exists or (B) it is not true that a fundamental consciousness exists.

Here are some of my condensed arguments to support God's existence:

The first cause argument:

The universe began to exist.

The beginning of the universe is explained by (1) chance, (2) physical law, or (3) free will.

Both (1) and (2) entail that the big bang was inevitable, because by counting backwards the number of trials leading up to the big bang, the event has a quantifiable beginning. Both (1) and (2) entail an infinite chain of preceding events, which is impossible. Therefore, the Big Bang was caused by (3) free will, meaning that the event was not inevitable and therefore doesn't succumb to the quantification problem. The only plausible candidate for something possessing free will is consciousness.

The universe began to exist.

The physical universe expanded from a zero-dimensional point at which all laws in the universe were broken down. The best explanation for this singularity is something non-physical that also possesses causal power. The only plausible candidate for this is consciousness.

The universe is fine-tuned (scientific consensus).

The fine-tunedness is either by design or not by design.

The fine-tunedness is more consistent with design.

Something non-conscious cannot design anything, so the only plausible candidate for this is consciousness.

If our internal organs have a purpose, God exists.

Our internal organs have a purpose.

Therefore, God exists. 

Without God, evolution is just a mindless process that has no aims or goals. You would need (1) intent (to reach the goal) and (2) knowledge (of the goal itself). Any prescribed function for our internal organs is predicated on goals.

The universe indicates a designing mind or it does not. A designing mind is indicated by attributes only found in consciousness such as beauty, rationality, intelligibility, creativity, and purpose. The universe exhibits these qualities. Therefore, the universe indicates a designing mind. If the universe has a designing mind, God exists.

Either moral realism is true or moral realism is not true.

Moral realism is true.

The only way moral realism could be true is if humanity has inherent ends. The only way humanity could have inherent ends is if they were imbued by an external consciousness. 

Near death experiences of God are considered dying declarations.

Dying declarations are admissible evidence in court.

The weight of evidence on this issue is in favor of God's existence.

The laws of logic are abstract, invariant, and universal. 

Since the laws of logic consists of conceptual truths, it must correspond with an abstract, invariant, and universal consciousness.

(1) define the terms:

Define what you mean by the term "God" and ask the atheist whether they find it (A) more probable that God does not exist or (B) whether they are undecided on whether God's existence is probable or improbable. I suggest framing the issue on whether consciousness is fundamental or whether the material world is fundamental. 

If the atheist identified as (A), then they need to rationally justify their position using some form of evidence. If the atheist identified as (B) then the atheist is purely impartial on whether God exists or not and needs no evidence because they have no position on the matter. If the evidence leans in favor of God's existence this would rationally compel them to become theists.

(2) agree on a threshold for rationally warranted belief. Some atheists will demand "incontrovertible" evidence of God before believing. A perfectly rational person, however, would accept that a claim is true if there's more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue. 

(3) Present your evidence. This is really where the theist should shine. There are cosmological, axiological, teleological, and ontological arguments in support of God's existence. The theists case will consist of arguments on offense and the atheist will be playing defense. Even if the atheist is successful in negating all of these arguments, they still would have no positive case that God does not exist until they present arguments in support of that position. 

The theist is loaded with ammo but the atheist has a shield. The outcome of the debate will depend on how familiar you are with the available body of evidence and how rational your interpretation of the evidence is.

Is this DDO reincarnated?

(1) we have observed that all conscious persons also have physical bodies.

(2) any conscious person who is posited to exist without a physical body contradicts this observation.

(3) God is posited to be a conscious person who exists without a physical body and therefore contradicts this observation.

Conclusion: therefore, on these inductive grounds, God probably does not exist.

I don't believe there are any. "Lack of evidence for God" refers to theism's lack of arguments on offense. This isn't itself an argument that God doesn't exist. Pointing out how beliefs in a deity have been formed throughout history to invalidate or make it less likely that any particular defintion of God exists is a genetic fallacy. 

I'd like to hear any strong arguments you might have for atheism.

If the Big Bang wasn't brought into existence by free will, then there must be an infinite regress of preceding causes that led to up to the Big Bang.

Given an infinite amount of time, any action that has a greater than 0 chance of occurring will inevitably occur.

One this action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the action. By doing this, the entire event has a quantifiable beginning.

The problem is that given an unlimited amount of time, something that can happen inevitably will. This gives you an infinite chain of events that all have quantifiable beginnings to them which is logically absurd. The only way around this is if an action occurred by free will - in that case the event will not have a quantifiable beginning.

Everything you see has no independent existence. We're living in a virtual world. 

If there's no God, then human beings are just the byproduct of a mindless process and have no inherent aims or goals. This would mean that what we should or shouldn't do is completely undefined. That means that what's morally right or wrong would wholly depend on human opinions 

We live in a world that's so full of information. Think of it like graphics in a game. If the world we see really arose from mindlessness, why is it so intelligible, beautiful, creative, rationally structured, purpose-driven, and complexly ordered? If there's zero intellect behind the world we see I'd expect it to be blank, unimaginitive, dull, distorted, obscure and unintelligible, aimless, absurd, haphazard, unprincipled, plain, and disjointed. 

Without God, evolution is just a mindless process that has no aims or goals. This means that everything that results from evolution is purposeless, including internal organs. If our organs fo have a purpose, and not one that we're merely imagining, an external intelligence is required for such a purpose.

Why or why not?

I'll start off with definitions.

Theism means belief in the existence of God. Atheism means without belief in the existence of God.

"God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness. 

Back to the definition of atheism. There are are two groups of atheists: The first group of atheist is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. The second group of atheist disbelieves in the existence of God.

The first group of atheist, one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, has no rationally held beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God by definition.

The second group of atheist, one who disbelieves in the existence of God has a belief about reality that is either true or untrue. Accordingly, there must be information that supports that view in order for it to be rationally warranted. Likewise, there must be information that supports the view that God exists in order for it to be rationally warranted.

So the question becomes: is there more evidence that the claim is true or is there more evidence that the claim is untrue?

Indirectly, there's evidence in support of God from quantum mechanics, the fine-tuned universe, an uncaused first cause, moral realism, and purpose in the natural universe. It's better explained by a primary consciousness. 

Isn't theism more rational than atheism?