What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Nearly Sane]

Moral irrealism cannot make moral arbitration. Everybody acts as if morals are real.

The first sentence is an empty assertion. The second is an ad populum and an assertion. D-

[Stranger]

I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.

That's just silly. Even if there were some sort of objective or "real" moral standard, we have no objective means of discovering what it is, so even if moral realism is true, it might as well not be true. We are left only with people's personal views, and any consensus that is reached in societies, regardless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The first sentence is an empty assertion. second is an ad populum and an assertion. D-

How can Moral irrealism make a moral arbitration?

[Stranger]

The support for an external creator is that everything observed is dependent on something else for it's existence.

But we have no way at all of knowing if the universe as a whole is dependent on something else for its existence nor can we make any inference about what sort of "something" it might be dependent on if it is.

Your conditioning has led you to avoid that obvious reason to posit an external creator as a possible reason for the universe.

An external creator (some enitiy that deliberately creates) is just a guess. It's not impossible but you haven't made an argument that it is actually the case.

That that creator may have had a creator is irrelevant to the reasoning.

Not really. If you propose something as an explanation for something (that everything seems to be dependent on something else for existence) and it doesn't actually explain it, then it becomes a pointless as well as a baseless guess.

[Nearly Sane]

How can Moral irrealism make a moral arbitration?

Trying your usual tactic of reversing the burden of proof. Your assertion, your burden.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But we have no way at all of knowing if the universe as a whole is dependent on something else for its existence nor can we make any inference about what sort of "something" it might be dependent on if it is.

An external creator (some enitiy that deliberately creates) is just a guess. It's not impossible but you haven't made an argument that it is actually the case.

Not really. If you propose something as an explanation for something (that everything seems to be dependent on something else for existence) and it doesn't actually explain it, then it becomes a pointless as well as a baseless guess.

Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances. You are special pleading again.

You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever. To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.

Your atheism has distorted your reasoning.

[Roses]

Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances. You are special pleading again.

You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever. To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.

Your atheism has distorted your reasoning.

It is what passes for your 'reasoning', which is distorted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are left only with people's personal views,

So how come they matter all of a sudden?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is what passes for your 'reasoning', which is distorted.

Of course not everything in the universe is explained by something other than that thing.
It would be unreasonable to propose either that the universe was infinite or appeared spontaneously without the third alternative of being explained by something other than the universe.

[Roses]

Of course not everything in the universe is explained by something other than that thing.
It would be unreasonable to propose either that the universe was infinite or appeared spontaneously without the third alternative of being explained by something other than the universe.

You think a god created the universe, in which case what created god?

[ippy]

Maybe reasoning and evidence has been put forward that isn't naturalistic enough for you guys.
However this thread is about what evidence might sway you and therefore I'm not obliged to cite evidence here? Let's start with an asteroid crashing into a comet and the debris spelling out the names of God in every language. Would that move you in any direction do you think?
or being convicted that morals are real and not just made up to suit Would that change your point of view?

Growth of atheism exponential? wow sounds like you've got a movement going there, a regular stealth religion, people using amazon has grown exponentially too. Why do you think the growth of atheism is significant. Is it because it is a force of Good? A wave of righteousness?
That of course would confirm Wilson's idea that this new movement is a stealth religion.

Blimey, a stealth religion which even obliges by presenting it's own saints.

Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
 
I did however notice you've jumped in on your usual verbal roundabout trip rather than face up to the fact there's no viable evidence around that could or would support your idea about this he, she or it thing you mostly refer to as god.

Just a simple answer is necessary Vlad, where's the evidence that would or could support this idea of yours where you think your invisible friend does in fact exist? Only the evidence for any form of god being in existence is running at zero for now.

Try to break your habit of not giving a direct answer to a direct question.

ippy.

P S 'All Hail Richard on High'!!
             

[Stranger]

Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances.

The point is that the reason you presented for positing this "creator" was to get round the problem of everything being dependent on something else for its existence. If the creator suffers from the same problem, then you've undermined your starting point. If you'd argued for a creator from some other starting point, then that would be different but you can't posit something to answer a question that it doesn't actually answer. That would be special pleading.

You also didn't address the points that we have no idea whether or not the universe as a whole is dependent on anything else for its existence and that, even if it was, we couldn't know what sort of "thing" it might be.

You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever.

I didn't try to (but we can't rule it out).

To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.

It's called the philosophical burden of proof - if you're proposing an external creator, it really is up to you to provide the reasoning (that would make it anything but a blind guess) - something you have so far totally failed to do.

[Stranger]

So how come they matter all of a sudden?

Evasion noted. Who said they didn't matter?

[Walter]

Right thinking people. That's a northern brexity sort of thing isn't it. What makes them right?

Vlad

so when it comes to your turn at 'show and tell'  you've actually got FUCK ALL .

A head full of wishing and hoping and praying is not going to cut it .

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
 
.....
           

No, evidence is defined by the methodology we use, and our methodology is naturalistic. It works on the basis of an assumption of naturalism. To talk about evidence for a supernatural god in that context is meaningless

Any supernatural 'evidence'  would need some form of supernaralistic methodology. Despite having asked Vlad (and many other believers) for such a thing, there is never a coherent answer.

[Walter]

what would we do without our Nearly Teacher ?

[Nearly Sane]

what would we do without our Nearly Teacher ?

Bathe in ignorance and despair

[Walter]

Bathe in ignorance and despair

Which is quite normal for me

I'm currently trying to identify and fix an electrical fault in the 12v circuit in my MH , any ideas chief?

[Nearly Sane]

Which is quite normal for me

I'm currently trying to identify and fix an electrical fault in the 12v circuit in my MH , any ideas chief?

Have you tried switching it off, and switching it back on again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point is that the reason you presented for positing this "creator" was to get round the problem of everything being dependent on something else for its existence. If the creator suffers from the same problem, then you've undermined your starting point. If you'd argued for a creator from some other starting point, then that would be different but you can't posit something to answer a question that it doesn't actually answer. That would be special pleading.

You also didn't address the points that we have no idea whether or not the universe as a whole is dependent on anything else for its existence and that, even if it was, we couldn't know what sort of "thing" it might be.

I didn't try to (but we can't rule it out).

It's called the philosophical burden of proof - if you're proposing an external creator, it really is up to you to provide the reasoning (that would make it anything but a blind guess) - something you have so far totally failed to do.

There is no way we can establish scientifically the origin of the universe. As Torridon has pointed out. Anything which satisfies science is invariably natural and cannot explain the existence of nature.

But we can make a reasoned proposal of a) external creator based on everything observed having been created from something else
                                                            b) an infinite existence for the universe
                                                            c) A spontaneous appearance of nature

In fact the only one which doesn't defy what we see in nature is a). If you fail to see that then i'm afraid you have been seriously led up the garden path.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
 
I did however notice you've jumped in on your usual verbal roundabout trip rather than face up to the fact there's no viable evidence around that could or would support your idea about this he, she or it thing you mostly refer to as god.

Just a simple answer is necessary Vlad, where's the evidence that would or could support this idea of yours where you think your invisible friend does in fact exist? Only the evidence for any form of god being in existence is running at zero for now.

Try to break your habit of not giving a direct answer to a direct question.

ippy.

P S 'All Hail Richard on High'!!
           

Richard on High? I think it's more like your high on Richard.

[Roses]

There is no way we can establish scientifically the origin of the universe. As Torridon has pointed out. Anything which satisfies science is invariably natural and cannot explain the existence of nature.

But we can make a reasoned proposal of a) external creator based on everything observed having been created from something else
                                                            b) an infinite existence for the universe
                                                            c) A spontaneous appearance of nature

In fact the only one which doesn't defy what we see in nature is a). If you fail to see that then i'm afraid you have been seriously led up the garden path.

Your garden path be very long indeed. You spout your nonsense, which is only your take on it, you have no evidence to support it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your garden path be very long indeed. You spout your nonsense, which is only your take on it, you have no evidence to support it.

I'm not taking lectures on nonsense from the Board's chief Bollock talker emeritus...……..Thank you.

[Walter]

Have you tried switching it off, and switching it back on again?

I bloody new you'd have the solution🤣👍

[Roses]

I'm not taking lectures on nonsense from the Board's chief Bollock talker emeritus...……..Thank you.

No dear that honour is all yours.