secularmerlin

I don't know what you mean by self evident since it is not evident to me but if ultimate reality is not just reality then you must demonstrate it. I can accept reality I do not accept that the universe requires a cause. You are either unable or unwilling to demonstrate that though you seem able to baldly assert it just fine.

Before I can answer that we would have to know exactly what justice is and how we arrived at it. What makes something just?

It was like pulling teeth but I finally got a more complete definition. The ultimate reality you see must be eternal and outside the universe or It is not in fact what Mopac means. So if nothingbis eternal or exists outside the universe then his god does not exist. When he says that his god is whatever reality there actually is he is giving an incomplete definition and committing an equivalency fallacy.

Mopac the whole point is that we cannot simply make reality into things that it is not and it doesn't give any indication of being as you describe. If you could show me sufficient evidence then you will have instantly converted me. But beliefs are not a choice and I cannot simply choose to believe something that has not been demonstrated. I asked you before and I believe you agreed that faith can lead equally to contradictory positions. If that is the case then having faith does not guarantee that you believe in reality. If all you have to convince you of your position is faith how can you possibly have any confidence in your position? That is baffling to me.

I only reject your definition of truth not truth itself.

Our inability to observe eternity does negate our ability to make any claim about any eternal thing or force beyond speculation or bald assertion.

There is indeed a name for that fallacy. It is called a black swan fallacy but I did not claim that an eternal thing is impossible I only claim that we could never know if anything were and therefore it is not knowable if such a thing exists. Unless you can somehow demonstrate it I await your demonstration.

I believe the truth must be demonstrated and that it cheapens the truth to ascert or accept without sufficient evidence. If you truly worshiped truth you would have more care with your speculation. I don't know is often the honest answer and always when you cannot demonstrate your claim even if you feel your claim is fundamental.

I don't know by what standard are we making determinations about justice? Justice would also seem to be subjective quanta.

If no thing that has a beginning can be God and nothing observable is eternal wouldn't you then agree that we have no observational experience with anything that meets the basic requirements of your definition of God?

I agree you are not pleading infinite regression. You have chosen to go with a special pleading fallacy instead. The cosmological argument must contain one or the other. Also in order to use it as an argument for a specific god concept comits a black and white fallacy.

Prove it. Prove that the ultimate reality is not simple physical reality prove that nothing can begin to exist without a cause prove that a cause cannot be preceded by an effect prove that anything is eternal prove that the universe as a whole is not eternal. Prove all of it or give it all up. I don't know where the universe came from or what if anything is outside the universe. Unless you can demonstrate your claims I will have no reason to think that you know either. I am not asking you to demonstrate reality as I presume that some reality does (though 100% certainty may be beyond me) I am asking you to demonstrate that reality conforms to your claims about it. I don't even care if you call it god or reality or Susan Swan and the tin plated dancers I only care about your specific claims about its nature.

Either nothing can exist without a cause in which case what caused your god(s) or at least one thing can exist without a cause in which case why could that one thing not be the universe itself?

Infinite regression or special pleading take your pick but the cosmological argument is built on one or the other. Further it cannot by itself lead to any particular god concept without committing a black and white fallacy.

I have not made a claim we are still addressing yours and we have yet to get to the actual question which I thought was the central point of our discussion. What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion?

What makes a thing "good" what attributes does a "good thing" possess?

Mindscexist as an emergent quality of an organic brain. Im not sure that this qualifies as a where or not.

You could call the universe a place but if so it is an area of three dimensional space not the things contained in that space or you could call it a collection of separate things which together comprise the universe in neither case are we connected to the universe in the way that your hand is connected to our body at least not so far as I can tell as for meaning that is a human notion if humans did not exist then meaning would not exist either you can call it real in the same sense that Harry Potter is real which is to say that the idea of Harry Potter exists in our minds but not in three-dimensional space

Fair enough. The bible (wether it is an accurate reflection of some god(s) character or not) does observable say that.

Well the cosmological argument either falls victim to the problem of infinite regression or comits the special pleading fallacy but putting that aside for a moment what makes any god(s) moral judgements/pronouncements more than some god(s) subjective personal opinion?

Do you have an answer to the question since it tickles you so? If you do what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?

You are welcome.

@buddamoose @thedredpriateroberts @kindertina @earth @drafterman 

Janesix is not a christian and neither am I. Why should we accept the bible as an accurate description of some god(s) character?

What makes scripture any more than the subjective opinions of the men who wrote them? Which scripture (for many religions have a holy book) is the most moral? If you can answer the second question what makes that answer more than your subjective opinion?

Well if you think of one let me know.

I cast identify as a ritual. If he's under the influence of a spell that will tell us.

What kind of test can we design to test god(s) for these attributes if we can find god(s)?

What about a religious world view makes morality more than a subjective opinion?

We've travelled rather far afield and I'm afraid our original conversation may be list in the shuffle. Let us refocus.

What makes the morality you follow anything other than a subjective opinion about right and wrong?

Why does everyone keep saying that? pulls the kitten from her pouch and strokes it givingit a few .morsels of dried meat.

And I'm Eikka. My reassuring smile may be a bit too full of tusks to be truly reassuring but I mean well.

@buddamoose @thedredpriateroberts @kindertina @earth

Does anybody have a way to snap this fisherman out of it?

What about the fisherman? Clearly the girls family will want a word with him.

Cast guidance medicine skill check healing word if necessary.

My claim in this case is an either or statement. To wit if our shared reality is real.

Let me be clear. I base my morality on what promotes harm versus well being so by my personal standard the acts you described are immoral. The difference is that I understand that this is simply my own personal moral code (and incidentally tends to be the moral code of most humans in the geographic location I inhabit) torture and cruelty of humans is "wrong" to me but there is no observable reason to think that morality exists absent humans to assign moral values. 

Also for clarity the problem of suffering isn't a problem unless there is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent ruler of the universe and only because in that case we would not expect to observe suffering on the universe. If no force guides events other than cause and effect we would reasonably expect suffering and contentment to be equally probable, which would appear to be the case.

The problem of suffering is a logical problem not an actual problem. I mean it is an actual problem too but in a causal universe with no god(s) it is not logically inconsistent with the reality we observe.

I am of the subjective opinion that humans are worthwhile since I have a vested interest in propagating this view as a human but I am hesitant to attribute humanity to any agency which is unable or unwilling to communicate their humanity. 

Still unwanted pregnancies are to my knowledge the primary cause of abortion so I would tend to think that if you object to abortion you would be in favor of any measure meant to mitigate the problem. Since reproductive health care and education have the net effect of reducing incidents of unwanted pregnancy your proposal and since these are precisely the services offered by planned parenthood your proposal is counter productive to your stated goal.

They only "prove" anything if our perceptions accurately reflect reality. Otherwise no they do not. If our shared reality is real however then scientific method has the best track record of any yet discovered for decerning truth and improving human quality of life.

I can offer peer reviewed studies proving adaptation of organisms up to and including speciation and genetic markers have been discovered that correlate directly with certain behaviors. To my knowledge morphic fields have not been demonstrated.

How would it be different if it were just am evolved survival trait? What qualities does a gift from some god(s) different from a naturally occurring genetically encoded behavior?

Conscience is a product of empathy. That is why it is easier to mistreat a person or group of people if you first dehumanize them in some way. For example it is easier to accept that "goats" are doomed to hell for their beliefs (rather than their behavior) than to accept the same thing about people who just happen to have different beliefs than yours. Dehumanizing people often involves comparing them with animals (racists will often refer to those they discriminate against as monkeys for example).

You mentioned the problem of evil. I actually don't generally use the term evil. For me it is the problem of suffering.

Whether you believe abortion is right, or wrong or you are neutral on the subject I think we can agree that unwanted pregnancy is the underlying issue and the numbers show that incidents of unwanted pregnancy go sharply down when people have access the reproductive health care and education about reproductive health. That being the case I would think that you agree that the best thing would be to have well funded and easily accessible family planning centers and yet I find that much of the vocal opponents of abortion also tend to be for the refunding and or shutting down of family planning centers. Is that the case with you? Do you feel that family planning centers like planned parenthood should be refunded and or shut down?

Fair enough

@craftsman @kindertina @buddamoose @thedredpriateroberts @earth

I move that we take a short rest. Am I seconded?

Atheism itself is not a religion unless a religious atheist like a Taoist or certain buhdists have two religions (which I do not regard as possible) also being an atheist does not guarantee beliefs in any subject scientific or otherwise including a belief in evolution or science in general. Many atheists do regard science as a good pathway to truth but that is not necessary to being an atheist. Also it is perfectly possible to be an agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. Atheism/theism concerns beliefs while agnosticism/Gnosticism concerns knowledge or at least a belief about whether knowledge on the subject is possible. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist or a Gnostic atheist. It is equally possible to be an agnostic theist or a Gnostic theist. Also no one has a choice because beliefs are not a choice. Atheists do not worship science but application of the scientific method can certainly lead to the rejection of religious claims.