Total posts: 948
Posted in:
(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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No need to be forgiven - we respectfully have our disagreements. And I can agree that absence of evidence is not evidence for existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Someone who is severely mentally retarded, to the point where they don't understand that people have personal belongings, is less morally culpable, or not at all, for stealing than someone who does have the cognitive capability of understanding that stealing is wrong.
The second layer, which is independent from cognitive capability, is your motive for doing something. Intentions matter. You are less culpable for accidentally taking someone else's personal belongings than if you do it deliberately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your criteria for testing is insufficient to prove the existence of things you hold to be true, like math and logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The logical assumption behind it is that if it's true that belief in God is irrational, most of the brightest minds on earth all held this irrational belief. So you're left questioning whether they really irrationally held this belief, not whether the belief itself is true or untrue.
Comparing God to Santa or Big Foot is a mistake. We have inductive evidence against santa and big foot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't agree with your usage of the term "denial' because what you really mean is that the claim won't be accepted as true nor rejected as untrue until further evidence is provided. You are merely non-acceptant of the claim pending further evidence.
"It is impossible to prove a negative" is false. There's not a 1,000,000 square foot building in my front pocket.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not basing a conclusion off of it, so it's not an argument from authority. If belief in God is as fanciful as belief in tooth fairies or other magical creatures it should call into question why the world's most brilliant minds (including scientists) held such an irrational belief in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's pull this apart first.
(1) There is no burden of proof on the person who denies a claim.
This is untrue. Probably the simplest way to show you this is if someone were making the claim "God does not exist." There would be no burden of proof on somebody who denies this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I said that moral culpability is better described by emotional intelligence than IQ. This was a comparison between two options and I selected an option that better fits. This does not mean that moral culpability is equal to your emotional intelligence. I've said previously that your moral culpability is based on your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Mere non-belief (which is neither belief nor disbelief) is the default position. Skepticism is an epistemic approach. I encourage skepticism, but be skeptical of both sides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
He held that in mind but nevertheless never considered himself an atheist. The father of evolution was an agnostic with theistic inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Even when writing On the Origin of Species in the 1850s he was still inclined to theism, but his views gradually changed to agnosticism:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If you believe that God does not exist it does set certain boundaries for logical coherency. It makes much more sense for an atheist to be a physicalist than an idealist. It would make no sense if an atheist believed that human beings have intrinsic worth. It would not make sense for an atheist to believe that nature has any sort of purpose. It wouldn't make sense to believe that consciousness is fundamental.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think only a very small minority of atheists actually have no belief either way as to whether any God exists.
"Atheism is a worldview" is just as correct as saying "atheism is not a worldview" because the term "atheism" has both meanings embedded within it. I don't see any problem with asking what the strongest argument for atheism is.
In mainstream philosophy, "lacking belief in God" is a rejected definition of atheism.
Here's why:
"1. Definitions of “Atheism”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is it really as outlandish to believe that there's a creator of the universe as it is to believe in yetis and the tooth fairy though? You have to keep in mind that some of the most brilliant people throughout history have believed in God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Atheism is defined as lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God or gods. So atheism, as a worldview, is one-part of a two-part definition. It is as "narrow" or "particular" as the other part meaning lacking belief in God. I agree with you that most atheists identify themselves with lacking belief in God but where I'd disagree is that atheists who identify themselves this way don't find it more probable that God doesn't exist. They're simply hiding behind one part of the defintion while holding the other to be true. In any case, I don't think declaring the thread "over" because someone said atheism is not a worldview was warranted because it in fact can be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There shouldn't be any rationale as to why we evolved a conscience because evolution is a mindless process without any aims or goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
... or does it correspond to something higher than ourselves? Just a thought
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Belief that God doesn't exist is a worldview and is considered atheism though. So atheism can be a worldview.
/not end of thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
By itself the human moral conscience would have no meaning. If someone were to subjectively ascribe a meaning of doing opposite of what their conscience says, however, then the empty void of their instrincically meaningless conscience has been filled with this purely subjective meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Ok. At least you're logically consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
If someone thought that their conscience had the meaning of telling them opposite of what they should do, then if their conscience told them not to rape someone, they'd rape them. They are just as rational in giving their conscience this meaning as someone who believes their conscience tells them behavior they should actually follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Ok, then what I said must be true - the human moral conscience itself has no meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
Not only do I believe that moral non realism is false, it also renders morality to be completely arbitrary and incentivizes people to become moral monsters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If something has no meaning unless some gives it meaning, by itself it has no meaning. The human moral conscience itself would be meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
How wouldn't the human moral conscience be meaningless? It wouldn't correspond to how we should conduct ourselves. There's no higher meaning there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
It's not a matter of whether it can happen, it's a matter of whether this is really what morality boils down to. Raping people is good as long as somebody believes it is and there's no moral highground for those who believe otherwise. The human conscience is a meaningless discomfort.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Ok, so one who desires control and pleasure, but initially felt held back by their conscience, can intellectually justify their desire to rape innocent women by considering it good. If their conscience is still bothering them they just begin valuing dishonesty more than honesty. And it's not as if their conscience even meant anything in the first place. Discomfort from their conscience would be like indigestion after eating tacos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
All you'd need to do is believe dishonesty is a good trait. This would all be malleable stuff
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Taking this view resolves anyone of moral responsibility or moral accountability before making their decision about whether they should accept your moral standards or the jihadists. One who desires control and pleasure, but initially felt held back by their conscience, can intellectually justify their desire to rape innocent women by considering it good. Does that ring true?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Okay, so you and the jihadists just have different opinions, neither one is better. Nothing would rationally compel someone to either side. It's rational for jihadists to wage jihad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because our universe would have been created by a transcendent consciousness (not comprised of the physical universe itself) if deism is true. This implies that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental and is therefore in direct opposition to atheism.
In genetics, scientists have coined the term "junk DNA" for strands of DNA they believed had no functional role in sustaining the organism because it had been left over from evolving. If a deity created the universe, this is an avenue for life to have been designed. Rather than mindlessly compiled, DNA can be viewed from a design-first approach. And as it turns out, less and less DNA is discovered to be "junk."
Created:
Posted in:
You have free will at the point where you realize you can make alternative decisions. I don't know exactly at what stage of development this happens. Probably very young in humans and maybe not ever in animals.
I don't have an equation for free will, only the defintion. No, emotional intelligence does not equal free will. Moral culpability is better represented by emotional intelligence than IQ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
True for the most part. Flat earthers seem to think there are no solid arguments for a spherical earth.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
Free will is the ability to have chosen otherwise. That's not a high threshold. Once that threshold is reached, any additional intelligence will not increase your free will. And by intelligence I assume you mean possessing higher cognitive abilities like weighing decisions, introspection, planning ahead, etc. Intelligence of this sort should not be conflated with an IQ score.
Your ability to be aware of how your actions affect others determines your level of moral culpability, not your intelligence. It's plausible many people have high IQ scores but very low emotional intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Ok, I'll rephrase. Neither your moral standards nor their moral standards are more rationally warranted. It's wholly dependent upon subjective opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, deism doesn't specify any particular God. Deism wouldn't be inconsequential. It would have implications for consciousness, biology, an afterlife, etc. It's also enough for atheism to be false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
0 does not relate to an object because an object that doesn't exist will have nothing to relate to it.
Math is useful, we both agree on that, but your theory that math is based on objects is where we disagree. We understand abstract concepts using our brain but this doesn't mean that abstract concepts are only contained within our brain. We understand reality using our brain too, this doesnt mean that reality is only contained within our brain.
Transcendental argument for God's existence.
Created:
Posted in:
And your moral opinion would be considered irrational relative to their moral standards. Your moral standards and their moral standards are equally rationally warranted. Correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I dont know what you mean when you say deism is functionally equivalent to atheism. You mean the world will continue as is with no supernatural intervention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, I cant conceive of 1,000,000 objects in my mind. That's way too many.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
0 apples isn't an object though. You said math was solely based on objects. You can't have a non-existent object to base the number 0 off of. This also does not address negative numbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Yes that does clarify, thank you.
So to be clear on your position, you believe that even if people hold opposite moral views than you, there is no rational difference between their opinion and yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
In reference to the opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice and laziness were morally good you said:
"I, personally, would find those things irrational if I wanted to be considered a good person. However, I cannot speak for someone else"
Now, in reference to the same opinion that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, are morally good are you saying this:
"Those things are morally good as they pertain to my moral standards. It would not be irrational for a sadist or a compulsive liar to disagree with me."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
The opinion was that cruelty, dishonesty, cowardice, and laziness was morally good. You found this to be irrational when taking into account your moral standards.
The other opinion was that vanilla is a better ice cream flavor than chocolate. You did not find this to be irrational when taking into account your preference for chocolate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
How did you arrive at the conclusion that rationality isn't universal? If someone believes that their behavior is rational does that automatically make it so?
What I'm not understanding is why you've accepted that a different opinion on ice cream flavors isn't irrational but a different opinion on morality is. It would make sense for this to happen from a moral realist standpoint but not from a moral non-realist standpoint. If you were logically consistent in recognizing that morality, like ice cream flavors, are purely subjective, there should be no rational differences between their different opinions on ice cream than on their different opinions about morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
True, you can't speak for someone else, but you did not see any rational difference between yourself and someone who disagreed with you on which flavor of ice cream was better. So if morality is purely based on opinion, just as which flavors of ice cream taste better is purely an opinion, why is there a rational difference between the two?
Created: