Fallaneze

The best explanation for the fine-tuned universe proposition indicates intelligent design. This alone would rationally justify belief that an intelligent creator of the universe exists.

Why?

I attack ideas, not people.

Thanks for the confirmation. Sorry for triggering you.

Well I guess that answers my question.

Can you verify that something is factually true without having something tangible to support it?

What's the threshold for rationally warranted belief?

I have a hard time believing that you believe the universe is alive and has a spirit. Do you actually believe this or are you just trying to be edgy for special attention?

Do you believe "evidence" must be something tangible or can evidence just be informational?

Is a belief rationally warranted only when "proven" true or is a belief rationally warranted when it's more plausibly true than false?

Are you a pantheist? I guess I don't really understand your position.

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

It depends on the definitions you use.

Funding for additional border barriers seems like a good idea.

Center for Immigration Studies has shown that illegal immigrants, on average, are a financial drain on society.

Drugs, trafficking, and other crime also comes pouring over the border. 

The amount Trump is requesting, 5.7 billion, is actually a relatively small amount. Both sides are playing heavy politics. 

DDO is gone.

Your religion is about believing reality exists.

You're right, I'm not interested in hearing about your religion. I'm interested in exposing the logical inconsistencies of your platform. So is there sainthood, doctrine, and churches based around the belief that reality exists?

There's sainthood, doctrine, and churches based around the belief that reality exists?

No, "being" in "supreme being" is referring to a mind or consciousness, not existence.

God has been understood as a supreme being for thousands of years, not the "ultimate reality." You're a Christian and insist on using a particularly obscure definition of the word "God" that basically means the same thing as reality. Good luck.

So God is a completely useless term then. 

God = reality

Reality exists 

Therefore, God exists

God = me

I exist

Therefore, God exists

God = rocks

Rocks exist

Therefore, God exists 

If God meant reality then we already have a term for that... it's called reality.

So someone who believes that the material world is the ultimate reality means that they believe God exists?

"You say the material world is God. I disagree. I say the material world is creation. I would say that without God, the material world would not exist"

Why the endless charade about God meaning "ultimate reality" if you believe a creator exists then? Like I said, atheists believe that the material world is the "ultimate reality." All you're doing is continuing an endless equivocation that has convinced nobody.

Yes, you are. You're conflating "ultimate reality" (which theists and atheists both agree exists) with the particular branch of theism at your church. You are using the term "God" to refer to two different things. You may believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God is the ultimate reality while atheists believe that the material world is the ultimate reality. Get it? 

I'm keeping my expectations low.

No and no.

People posit the existence of gods. To say they create gods implies that all gods are imaginary which needs to be evidenced.

Thanks!

I think atheists are wrong but without them I wouldn't be here having conversations, exploring existential questions nobody can possibly know the answers to.

It doesn't matter. There are people like that on both sides. 

I've never affiliated myself with any religion or doctrine. I'm not a deist either. 

I don't know why "good" would be logically incoherent.

We're not discussing christian doctrine.

In short, when someone is "morally good" we're referring to their disposition or will. "Moral goodness" cannot exist apart from the mind, period, since both are only attributes of the mind. So one half of the dilemma fails.

The other half, determining whether God's goodness is arbitrary or not, depends on whether God's nature is essential or inessential. If God's nature is essential, goodness is not arbitrary. In light of this, the dilemma fails.

How could you quantify the harm or benefit of a moral action? The relative harm or benefit will always be in relation to a goal. A thermometer doesnt need to involve goals to give you a reading.

"Abstract" refers to something that's imperceivable but realizable or understandable. The reason I said temperature was not abstract is because thermometers can tell us what the temperature is based on physical phenomena. We don't have the same physical measuring device to apply towards morality.

Morality is both real and abstract. 

"Morally good" refers to the disposition or will of the mind. Being compassionate, humble, courageous, etc. are dispositions. Statements of how one ought to act refers to the will. If God is essentially good, God's disposition and will are good in the same sense that water is wet.

Perhaps instead of changing your moral beliefs to better fit your worldview paradigm you should allow your moral beliefs to change your worldview paradigm.

I thought you only believed things that were verifiable and replicable? Clearly we cannot replicate the big bang under laboratory conditions.

If the findings are verifiable and repeatable then I await your source that shows where the big bang has been replicated.

Very welcome! 

A moral realist believes that morality is discovered rather than invented. It's unambiguous. Objective morality, on the other hand, is more ambiguous. By objective morality some people mean the same thing as moral realism but other people think it means that once you select a moral standard, you can objectively determine which actions are moral or immoral (meaning the standard itself is invented).

Me too. I enjoy the socratic method. For the record, I agree with you that morality is objective but prefer to label myself as a moral realist.

I do too. That's why I've asked you so many pestering questions.

Well to be fair you are somewhat unsure yourself. You are probably sure, mostly.

The only difference is that morality is abstract unlike temperature where the corresponding differences can be physically measured with instruments.

Well right there you said you were confident "for the most part" indicating remaining inconfidence.

Are you not confident that one's conscience is proof of objective morality?

Atheism is, and isn't, a system of belief. This is because the term atheism encompasses two mutually exclusive meanings.

So it seems your position is that our conscience is proof that morality is objective but it can only vaguely guide us to what's objectively immoral on some issues, leading to conflicting interpretations.

If it is morally wrong to not feed a hungry baby, is a mother acting immorally each second that the baby cries in hunger? Would they only be acting immorally if they didn't feed the baby before it died of hunger? Or would the mother be acting immorally if she let the baby cry for 5 minutes while she applied her makeup? 

If it is wrong to expose your breasts in a sexualized culture is it not wrong to expose your breasts in a non-sexualized culture? 

If covering your breasts in public while breastfeeding resolved the issue for most people, have the remaining people just not taken the time to single out the component issue? 

Do you believe the big bang happened? If so, why would you believe this even though we cant we have it tested in a lab?

Being social is more than just meaningless banter. It's a means to express yourself. Most importantly, and at bottom, it's about love. Love is the core essence of wellbeing and meaning.