Fallaneze

Are moral issues with component parts comprised of single moral issues? If so, and if our conscience tells us, in black and white, what's right and wrong on single issues, then why can't we calculate the correct answer? Wouldn't you think at least one person would be able to come up with a "proof" of whether it's objectively immoral or not? 

Can you give some examples of single moral issues and other moral issues you consider to have component parts?

If morality is objective, there is only one correct answer. Either breastfeeding in public is immoral or it is not. If everyone's conscience is the same, we should know with certainty whether it is objectively immoral or not.

But there would not be two conflicting interpretations involved if everyone had the exact same conscience that informed them of what's objectively immoral or not.  So either this issue is decided independent of ones conscience, or not everyone's conscience is the same.

Wylted I think you are in dire need of attention to distract you from your distress. Instead of spending time on here you should get out of the house and try to socialize with real people who can make you feel better.

If we know of what's objectively moral or immoral from our conscience then why doesn't it do that for us on this issue?

But if everyone's conscience is on the same page, why is it "a grey area" in determining whether breastfeeding in public is immoral or not? Why wouldn't it just be black and white since everyone has the exact same conscience? 

Do you think everyone's conscience is on the same page on this issue?

The common objection is that it's a false dilemma.

If God is essentially good, then good is neither apart from God nor is it arbitrary as the dilemma implies.

Okay, let's move to an even more gray area.

Some people find it immoral to breastfeed in public. Do you think everyone's conscience is on the same page on this issue? And if so, what is everyone's conscience telling them?

So for people who are okay with abortion, do you think their conscience tells them that it's immoral and that they all choose to ignore it? 

Or are people who are against abortion on moral grounds lying when they say it goes against their conscience?

Okay, do you think everyone's conscience is the exact same or do some people have a conscience that tells them differently?

Do you think it's possible that two different people have their conscience telling them to act opposite of each other?

Can your conscience be wrong?

In figuring out whether someone is a bachelor or not you're merely discerning which identity the person has. The law of identity means that each thing is identical with itself (A = A) which requires no empirical validation. You're reverting to your example about how we cannot know whether reality is an illusion or not to affirm the claim that all knowledge is impossible. Again, knowledge can be obtained both rationally and empirically. Uncertainty on whether reality is an illusion only pertains to empirical knowledge. 

I don't think you understand. The laws themselves require no posteriori verification. You verifying whether someone is a bachelor or not has no relation to whether the law of identity is verifiably true. 

I do have a choice. I reject the claim that all knowledge is impossible. It's a self-defeating position.

The 3 fundamental laws of logic are a priori and require no posteriori verification. You're also making statements of knowledge while arguing from the position that knowledge is impossible.

Knowledge of something isn't limited to what we can perceive. We also know of things we can only conceive of, like mathematical and logical truths. Even if our perceptions were illusory this wouldn't affirm that all knowledge is impossible. We cannot prove that the world isn't an illusion. 

If knowledge is impossible then we wouldn't be able to share any statements of knowledge, including what you're asking me to prove. But knowledge isn't impossible. We can be knowably certain that the three fundamental laws of logic are true. 

If knowledge is impossible then you're wasting your time making statements. The paradox isn't the problem. Your view that knowledge is impossible is wrong. A statement about something being a paradox is still universal, invariant, and abstract.

You don't know anything, so why should I bother to read any statement you make?

You said "nothing is verifiably certain" in post #88. So if knowledge is verifiably certain, but nothing is verifiably certain, you're saying nobody has knowledge of anything. Does that seem reasonable?

It isn't a moot point because you're claiming a belief is rational only if it's knowable. This implies that beliefs must be based on verifiable certainty in order to be rational, yet you say that technically nothing is verifiably certain. 

If knowledge is defined as possessed information about something, belief in God can be based on knowledge. If knowledge is defined as verifiable certainty, then belief in God cannot be based on knowledge. This is why definitions matter.

Yes, you would only have knowledge that someone said that. Not knowledge that santa exists. 

Here is where you need to draw your line: what is the definition of "knowledge"? What is the definition of "evidence"?

You didn't bother to address my statement that only math, logic, and self-awareness are the only things that are knowably certain. 

Possessed information about something IS knowledge. Evidence is information indicating whether a claim is true or untrue. If there's more evidence favoring the claim, the belief is both rational and based on knowledge.

If you're implying all beliefs must be knowably certain before it is rational to believe them then that's nonsense. Math, logic, and your own self-awareness are the only things we're knowably certain of.

Evidence is just facts or information indicating whether something is true. The fine-tuned universe is more consistent with design rather than not. Using an inference to the best explanation, the fine tuned universe evidences design and therefore a designer ("God").

I do have some rebuttals, but out of fairness to your opponent, I will remain silent unless he/she is okay with it. I will not vote on the debate regardless. 

Because I want people to come to terms with how lousy the evidence is for atheism and how the evidence favors theism.

If a claim is more plausibly true than false, it is more rational to believe the claim rather than withhold belief or disbelieve it. We don't need solid proof of a belief. Again, the threshold is whether it's more plausibly true than false.

We can't quantify whether anything is conscious. Consciousness is beyond scientific verification. You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious. 

I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply. 

There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience. 

So you think animals aren't conscious? 

You think that intending to create something is limited to human beings only?

There is nothing "constrained" about it except for the arbitrary contraints you mentioned.

Deism is not functionally identical to theism. Deism refers to a God who created the universe and but doesn't intervene in ongoing affairs. The functional difference, with atheism, is that the universe was designed rather than undesigned. Junk DNA is now viewed as functional DNA we haven't discovered a purpose for yet. There is one functional difference right there. Consciousness rather than matter would be fundamental. There's another functional difference.

Hasty generalization logical fallacy. Debunked.

Just kidding. But your post comes across as someone who is trying to prove they're more intelligent than those you complain about by using superfluous language and references to philosophy materials you've read which is kind of annoying.

I'm not calling the big bang God. Restart everything in your post.

No it's not because science would have a design-first approach. It also means that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental which has many implications.

Yes

I'm only considering plausibility. I don't have a percentage likelihood attached to it.

I created the debate.

I'm a pretty lousy debater, so don't worry about it. As soon as I get it set up I'll send it to you. I haven't made a debate on this site before but if it's quick and easy I may set it up tonight between doing other things.

Let's have a debate on whether it's evidence of God.

I think it's more likely that wavelengths are just a visual representation of mathematical disparities 

This should make you question whether reality is real.

I'm sorry to hear that and hope he is doing well. Have a happy new year!

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?

Yes but we need to understand the meaning of the term God before believing. If we can't understand the meaning of something, like "Garpokdalp", we can't say we believe that Garpokdalp exists.

Do you think God exists?

How can something meaningless exist?

Can you understand the meaning of the word God?

If only I had a list of arguments to support it... no, we don't need tangible proof. A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.

I have none

I agree with your characterization. I disagree about needing to accept that purpose and meaning are not external to ourselves though.