Fallaneze

If you have a problem with any of the arguments I'm all ears.

This one. 

The one who's a fundamental consciousness.

I'm only referring to one fundamental consciousness, not two or five or thousands. My arguments are only moot when you can point out problems with them.

My arguments intended to support God, defined as a fundamental consciousness, and they did. So I fail to see how the arguments are "moot" just because I didn't use a narrower definition of God. It just doesn't logically follow. 

All definitions are made up.

That doesn't follow.

It was my selected definition 

Yep. The implications are fascinating.

They're intended to be arguments for a fundamental consciousness. Not moot.

No I am not talking about any god in particular.

A prime, eternal consciousness 

"People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts."

Moral realism is calling.

"Is intelligent design creationism?"

"Is intelligent design a scientific theory?"

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed

Different methodologies.

Compare intelligent design with abiogenesis instead of creationism 

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.

Physical "laws" are all subject to the same problem. If the end result is from clockwork then it faces the quantitative problem

The only alternative you've offered that hasn't already been said is an eternal universe. All evidence points to the Big Bang so this isn't a good alternative. The other theories all fall under either chance, free will, or physical law.

We knew using mathematics. As predicted, it was true.

Positive properties are just ones that don't contradict themselves.

A is chance, B is physical necessity, and C is free will. Please feel free to fill in letters D-Z with an identified alternative.

So this isn't a good argument then? Looks like there are no good arguments for atheism after all.

Either A, B, or C.

Not A or B.

Therefore, C.

The OP shows how chance and physical necessity result in mathematical and logical contradictions. 

Some event must begin in a non-quantifiable way, which leaves free will and excludes chance and physical necessity. 

He is saying that the laws themselves are traceable back to a point at which they all broke down. That is intrinsic to the laws themselves, and not any external agency. An explanation as to how these laws originated is not offered.

As for alien abductions, aliens are physical beings. We have inductive evidence against them at least visiting our planet. So no

That isn't a requirement for God. God in this sense is a prime, eternal consciousness.

See Stephen Hawking's lecture about the beginning of time. It's freely available on the internet. According to him, all laws were broken down. I'm basing my conclusion on his findings. Why should I trust you over him?

That seems correct. Proof is just a strong a form of evidence. 

Having no information to indicate anything cannot mean that this is information that indicates the absence of something. 

RE: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I agree with this statement but you disagree. Whether this statement is true or not wholly depends on the defintion of evidence you're using. Here is the defintion of evidence from Oxford handbook (Google): 

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Now substitute this defintion with the word "evidence" in the slogan.

ABSENCE OF any available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid IS [an] available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

This is false. The slogan, using this definition of evidence, is therefore true.

I'm doing a process of elimination. If chance and physical laws are excluded, this leaves free will as the best explanation at this point.

By "intellect exhibited in nature" I mean cohesive, rationally structured, mathematically predictable, intelligible, purpose-oriented, etc.

There's no reason to expect God to rewrite the program or for us to be able to detect this if it happened. It probably wouldn't be needed in the first place since if God has the power to create the entire universe I think he'd know what he was doing.

We have evidence against alien abductions and certain gods that have been posited. The claim wholly depends on the evidence, not past variations.

My conclusion is based on information - not absence of information - so it is not a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. The expansion of the entire physical universe from a zero-dimensional point, a point at which all laws in the universe were broken down, indicates a non-physical (and therefore supernatural) explanation.

A physical law would run into the same problem though. When something is inevitable, the event has a quantifiable beginning. You would need a mechanism that isn't on any sort of clockwork. You would need something that could "choose" to actualize an event. This is an argument based on knowledge, and a rejection of the argument, at this point, is based on ignorance. 

All you're doing is equivocating the term "God" with "reality." Theists and atheists both agree that reality exists. Atheists probably believe that the material world is the "ultimate reality" whereas theists believe that consciousness is the "ultimate reality." "God", how you're defining the term, is too ambiguous to be meaningful. You're saying that someone who believes that the material world is primary is considered a believer in God. This is utter nonsense.

Well I'll grant you the first piece of that.

What are we talking about again?

We knew about the Higgs particle decades before it was verified empirically through pure math alone.

Math and logic can both be used to arrive at the conclusion that God exists. Kurt Godels modal ontological argument, using axioms of logic, was computer verified.

A priori knowledge. Mathematical and logical truths are not known through physical, measurable effects. 

Why not?

Is this DDO reincarnated?

Have you dropped my other arguments?

I don't see the physical material effect of logical or mathematical truths which themselves are not just subjectively true.

Materialism, the philosophical viewpoint, is different than being materialistic. Your definition of God is too vague to be useful. Atheism might logically entail nihilism but being an atheist does not mean you hold nihilism to be true. 

Which defintion of God has no evidence either way? And I think we understand the term "evidence" differently. You understand it to mean something that has a measurable physical effect and I understand it to mean information indicating the truth of a claim.

Mathematical and logical truths are not just subjectively true. If math is built on physical reality then we'd never know of pure geometry since perfect geometric shapes do not exist other than theoretically. If math was built on physical reality then we wouldn't have knowledge of 0 and negative numbers. You cannot share statements of knowledge without presupposing the invariant, abstract, and universal laws of logic.

Fair enough, I'm glad you don't consider yourself to have infallible knowledge.

Here is the defintion of hypostasis: "an underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or that which lacks substance."

By "person" I mean "a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness." 

Referring to God as "the ultimate reality" is compatible with atheism. Atheists believe that the material world is the ultimate reality and that consciousness is emergent from matter. 

You've derailed my thread with your nonsense but since nobody else has responded yet I guess I'll oblige.

The Merriam Webster defintion you're fixated on delineates the "ultimate reality" of God into two parts - and in both parts God is referred to as either a being or a mind. What you're trying to do is make the defintion vague so that it applies in all possible cases. Even atheists agree that there's a prime reality - they just disagree that it consists of consciousness. 

You've also used a defintion of God straight from Merriam-Webster which directly contradicts your assertion that it is "beyond defining."

Rocks exist.

Rocks are God.

Therefore God exists.

Skepticism isn't a state of belief though. If you agree that having no state of belief (mere non-belief) is the default position then I'd agree with that.

I tweaked it a few times. What do you think of this? This is not my original argument but I tried formulating it best I could.