Moral argument my version - proof for God.

[F1fan]

It's not clear what statements you are referring to, so I can't respond until you specify what statements you're referencing

I think you also misunderstand the concept of self evidentialism.

To say something is self evident is not to say you are "closed" to it being disputed, as though this were some matter of religious faith.

To say something is self evident is to say that it's truth is an experience of people so obvious and undeniable that it is simply known to be real by those who experience it - and furthermore it is something experienced universally by all normal people so we know it's not subjective to an individual. It's also something we can say has always been experienced as true by people, as far as we know. And we have no reason to believe the truth of those experiences will ever change either.
All of these are the hallmarks of an objective truth.

The big problem with your belief here is that self-evident can include Santa Claus being self-evident to children. Kids experience the presents they find under the tree, they sit on Santa's lap at the mall. These kinds of experiences, and your religious experiences, aren't self-evident at all. They are learned beliefs. These are ideas theists learn from their social and cultural experiences. This is why Hindus experience a different God than Muslims, and Muslims a different God then Christians, and extremists of any religion from their fellow liberals.

From a psychological perspective theists believe in their frameworks from their subconscious, not their rational and conscious mind. So many of the details of WHY a their believes is not something the theist is consciously aware of. You think your beliefs are self-evident? No, they are ideas adopted by the subconscious and you confuse them as being evident.

You also typically have trouble disproving or proving these truths by math and logic, so you end up just having to assume they are true and operate from there.

Theists fail to prove their claims. Yours are highly misrepresented and flawed. You try to justify your beliefs FROM your belief. That's heavy bias and a confused framework.

For instance, the scientific method itself is based on assuming true the self evident truth that logic and math are true. Even though you can't prove logic and math are true by using the scientific method (which is just logic and math) because that would be circular reasoning.{/quote]
Then to hell with everything. Why are you even bothering to present an argument? And if science and logic doesn't work, well that's sure bad news for theists whose beliefs are not even self-evident.

The only reason we have a category called self evident truths, instead of simply throwing them in a pile along with other unproven assumptions and beliefs, is because again it comes down to our shared experience which tells us this things actually are true in reality. We know them to be true from experience and we can’t deny that truth even though we can’t prove it, so we are forced to call them self evident truths because we aren’t willing to deny they exist.

Things that can be proven with the scientific method come out of the category of self evident to become called scientific truths. But those things which we know to be true but cannot prove must remain in the self evident category.

In fact, we could go so far as to say that there is another thing self evident truths share in common is that the consequences of denying their reality would cause disasterous harm upon the ability of us as individuals and as a society to function.

If you deny that math and logic exist because you can't prove it, then science, engineering, planning, etc, anything that depends on reason and calculation ceases to be done. If you truly live according to what you believe.

It is therefore not only not useful to deny self evident truths, but it's actually harmful.

You're all over the place here, and it's not coherent. For self-evident to mean anything it has to be objective and verifiable. For example self-evident would be if anyone can use their senses and see the bowl of cherries on the table. Can they be felt? Can they be tasted? Can they be smelled? This is self-evident. Self-evident is not a belief that my imaginary friend exists. Remember this line of debate started because you claimed that "we know God exists as self-evident". No, humans can't detect any gods, so unless you have some special abilities to sense the supernatural it's a bogus claim, and not at all honest.

This is why most materialistic atheists cannot bring themselves to believe that we have no free will and that objective morality doesn't exist. Not only do they know from their own experience that those things do exist, but they understand the dire consequences to society if we were to actually try to live according to a belief that humans have no choice, are just robots, and morality doesn't exist.

You could say that it's always dangerous to not live according to what is true. Living as though gravity doesn't exist is dangerous. It doesn't become safe to live in opposition to truth just because you don't know how to prove something is true. Ancient people may not have known how to prove with logic and math that gravity existed but trying to live as though it didn't exist was no less fatal to them. We could say the same is true of other self evident truths like objective morality and free will.

Atheists would have to deny certain self evident truths to be logically consistent with their worldview (like free will and objective morality), but the consequences of doing so violate what they know by experience to be true about themselves and the world around them. They also don't like the implications for society if they were to follow those believes to their logical conclusions with regards to there being no purpose and no morals constraining how we act with each other. They intuitively understand the danger just as they intuitively understand that objective morality must exist.

The dishonest atheist tries to have it both ways. They want to deny the basis from which we could justify an objective morality while still trying to hold to a moral standard which they claim is objective. It is an untenable position and an illogical one but one which they have no choice but to take because they don't want to jettison their necessary acknowledgement of free will and objective morality.

The honest atheist will admit they cannot believe in objective morality or free will, but will nevertheless still live as though both of them are true and advocate that others continue to live as though they are true as well. So it brings into question the validity of an atheistic worldview and it’s usefulness if they aren’t willing to actually live consistent with it.

These are a lot of words and not demonstrating that a free will exists (in the sense that a person has complete self-awareness including the subconscious) nor that an objective morality exists outside of the evolutionary process through biology. Your posts are indicative of using terms and phrases and applying misleading or false meanings.

Atheists accept science, facts, and reason. Your arguments reject these, and in doing so you offer no alternative to arrive at what is true about reality except "i believe it". And your beliefs are badly naive and lack vital data and information, so it's no good for debate.

You are contradicting yourself.
If humans don't have free will then they can't make choices.
You admit humans can make choices and don't doubt this.
Therefore it's not questionable that humans have free will

You need to read more science.

The unconscious, emotions, and our decision-making process

"Susan Weinschenk is a behavioral psychologist and her book 100 Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People was one of the first books I read about the psychology of design. Since then she has been my hero. In one of her online classes, Brain and Behavioral Science, she states that around the year 2000, researchers within the field learned that most of the decisions we make are unconscious. In fact, up to 90% of our decision-making is unconscious. "

Your thinking is obsolete. Don't confuse being aware of having made a choice or decision with that being fully conscious and free from the subconscious mind. That is where you are being naive.

You are proving what I said true about self evident truths by showing you believe in and adhere to them.

We humans can be aware of real things existing. We can't be aware of imaginary things existing. You disagree. You want to treat your belief in the imaginary as if it is real and true somehow, yet you can't explain how this is known to an ordinary mortal like yourself. You've typed a lot of words, none that explain how you have the ability to KNOW a God exists when it isn't evident to others.

Quibbling over how much influence various factors have over people's choices doesn't change the fact that you either are making a choice or you aren't. You can't have it both ways.

Since you affirm the self evident truth that the ability to choose exists, you cannot logically hold to the position of materialistic atheism because that worldview affords no basis by which true free will can exist.

In a materialistic atheistic world there would be nothing but the illusion of choice as your actions have already been predetermined by the starting conditions of the big bang being constrained by the the laws of physics to reach the only result that is possible, like a given force acting upon a spread of marbles. How they will scatter is already predetermined by the laws of physics based on the makeup of their properties and the makeup of the properties of that which hits them. There is no agency for true choice without the ability to make a choice independent of the laws of physics that constrain this universe. Christian theists would call this your spirit or soul. Atheism has no alternative to explain this phenomenon, and their worldview makes it impossible for such there to be any explaning because it doesn't really exist according to their worldview.

Can you demonstrate that anything exists that isn't material?

You contradict yourself.
You just admitted there is no doubt that we have choice.
Therefore you are saying you know free will exists.

No, these are not the same thing. Read my link.

In fact, your atheistic worldview makes the possibility of free will a logical impossibility. You have only the illusion of choice when your actions were predetermined from the point of the big bang by the laws of physics

Define what you mean when you say "free will" and let's examine whether it is valid or some naive meaning you're using. Thus far you've confused free will as meaning decisions.

I never claimed that I can prove God exists to you by claiming I know God exists.

Then how is a God being true or a truth self-evident?

Merely calling my argument "nonsense" doesn't disprove the validity of my logic or the evidence used.

It's self-evident that your argument is nonsense.

 

[rational experiences]

A human self idolaters as a human.

Warned self. Was consciously aware of a self human problem.

Said no man is God.

Reasoned we became self human idolaters.

Theme I am more spiritual and have special human powers.

Ai status encoded machine human designed changed earths natural mass transmitters. Burnt them out mass converting.

Burnt them out.

Supernatural caused. Egotism introduced. Mind condition.

Argues in mind between subliminal to self spiritually natural as a self Idolator. Just a human.

Was already realised warned and notified a cause of supernatural occult science cause and effect.

God in science human taught all preceding one planet owned natural history as science.

Science theories about the earth and it's heavens was not a theory about self human presence.

The attack life sacrificed was human explained human science caused via human incorrect self superiority.

Had been reasoned. Was pre known to be a human condition. To believe a human was superior to a human. By using God planet inferences.

 

[Rise]

The big problem with your belief here is that self-evident can include Santa Claus being self-evident to children. Kids experience the presents they find under the tree, they sit on Santa's lap at the mall. These kinds of experiences, and your religious experiences, aren't self-evident at all. They are learned beliefs. These are ideas theists learn from their social and cultural experiences.

You are showing you don't understand what a self evident belief is.
Your analogy, as a result, is invalid.

No child is born with a belief santa exists.
It is something that must be told exists by someone else.

You don't need to be told by someone that you exist in a physical reality or that you have the free will to make choices. You know this already by your own self evident experience.

This is why Hindus experience a different God than Muslims, and Muslims a different God then Christians, and extremists of any religion from their fellow liberals.

You have to define what you mean by "experience". Your assertion doesn't make any specific claims without defining that and as such is not a valid argument.

From a psychological perspective theists believe in their frameworks from their subconscious, not their rational and conscious mind. So many of the details of WHY a their believes is not something the theist is consciously aware of. You think your beliefs are self-evident? No, they are ideas adopted by the subconscious and you confuse them as being evident.

If self evident beliefs make you a theist then that means you are probably a theist.

Do you believe any of the following are true?
-That logic is true.
-That math is true..
-That you exist as a conscious being.
-That you exist in a physical universe.
-That time exists.
-That you have free will to make real choices.
-That there is such a thing as objective right or wrong.

If you say yes to any of these then you believe in self evident truth because none of them are things you can prove are true. You simply know they are true by your self evident experience.

Theists fail to prove their claims. Yours are highly misrepresented and flawed. You try to justify your beliefs FROM your belief. That's heavy bias and a confused framework.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that my arguments have "failed", or are "flawed", or are "misrepresenting", or are "confused", or accusing me of the fallacy of begging the question, etc doesn't do anything to refute my argument because you have given no reasons for why we should believe your claim is true.

You claim that my argument is in error is not proven to be true merely because you assert it is so.

You are required to provide logical arguments and evidence to demonstrate any supposed flaws in my arguments before we have any reason to believe my arguments are insufficient in any way.

You are also committing the "bias fallacy" by accusing me of being biased. Because even if we assumed your claim were true it would be irrelevant to disproving my claims. Someone can logically be biased by still have a valid argument and a true conclusion. So accusing someone of bias doesn't disprove their argument.

 

[Rise]

You're all over the place here, and it's not coherent. For self-evident to mean anything it has to be objective and verifiable.

Dictionary definition of "self evident":

• Requiring no proof or explanation.
• Evident in itself without proof or reasoning; producing clear conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind.
• adj.
  Evident without proof or reasoning; producing certainty or conviction upon a bare presentation to the mind.

You don't get to invent your own definition of self evident to mean something which is completely the opposite of what it actually means.

At that point you're no longer talking about the same concept.

Remember this line of debate started because you claimed that "we know God exists as self-evident".

You are not quoting what I actually said, and are engaging in the logical fallacy of a strawman.

I said that self evident truths as a concept exist.

And I also said that a direct experience with God to know He exists would constitute an example of something that would be a self evident truth to the person who had that experience.

No, humans can't detect any gods, so unless you have some special abilities to sense the supernatural it's a bogus claim, and not at all honest.

On what basis do you presume to claim humans can't detect God? You are merely making an assumption that is true but you provide no proof that your claim is true.

As such, the argument you try to make based on that presumption is rendered invalid.

These are a lot of words and not demonstrating that a free will exists
...
nor that an objective morality exists outside of the evolutionary process through biology.

[/quote]

None of the specific arguments you quoted were trying to prove free will or objective morality exists.

Nor was proving free will or objective morality exists necessary for any of those specific arguments to be valid.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of a red herring. It seems that because you are unable to respond to the arguments I made you just want to distract from them by changing the topic.

The arguments you tried to ignore were dealing with the fact that most atheists don't really believe things that are consistent with what they claim to be true. That they deny self evident truths by their professed worldview but in many cases continue to believe in those self evident truths, and even if they claim to not believe in them they still live as though those self evident truths are true.

(in the sense that a person has complete self-awareness including the subconscious)

You are committing the same fallacy you did with "self evident" by trying to invent your own definition for the word that presupposes your belief is true about that word.

But that is not the definition of free will:

Free will:

• The ability or discretion to choose; free choice.
• n.
  The power of making choices that are neither determined by natural causality nor predestined by fate or divine will.

You either have free will choice or you have determinism. There is no inbetween third option logically. Because even if you only have 1% agency to choose and are 99% of the time being so forcefully influenced by external factors that you just can't resist it, the fact remains that genuine free will choice still exists. If it didn't then that 1% of the time you break free from other influences wouldn't be possible.

Materialism doesn't make a way for even the 1%. Everything is predetermined in materialism by the laws of physics and you never have the power to choose.

So believing in that requires denying the self evident reality you experience of choice. The atheist in that case still acknowledges the self evident experience is real, they just reason that it must be an illusion.

Your posts are indicative of using terms and phrases and applying misleading or false meanings.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I have given misleading or false meanings to terms and phrase doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.

You are required to quote specific things I have said and then give evidence to prove why you think any meaning I have given to a term is false.

You can't do that because it's not true.

Atheists accept science, facts, and reason.

This is the great irony of the materialistic atheist
You deny that certain self evident facts about reality exist (like free will), without any evidentiary basis for doing so other than having an a priori commitment to materialistic atheism (which you can't prove is true), and then you want to champion yourself as the believers in facts and reason.

Your arguments reject these,

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that my arguments reject science, facts, or reason, doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.

You cannot quote any specific argument I have made and give any logical valid argument about why you think it is rejecting those things.

 

[Rise]

and in doing so you offer no alternative to arrive at what is true about reality except "i believe it".

You contradict yourself without realizing it. Your position is self-refuting when you look at it more closely.

You think the scientific method (which is just a combination of math and logic) and reason (which is logic) is the only way ones arrive at truth.

But you can't prove math and logic are true using the scientific method.

You can't prove logic is true by using logic. That would violate the logical law of not proving your conclusion by assuming it is true in your premise. Ie. Circular reasoning.
The same is true of math. You can't logically use math to prove math is true.

You believe these are true because their truth is self evident to you.

But if self evident truth isn't a viable way of concluding something is true then that means the scientific method isn't true. Because it depends on assuming self evident truths to function.
And if the scientific method is the only valid way you think there is to determine what is true then you have no way of determining what is true about anything.

And your beliefs are badly naive and lack vital data and information, so it's no good for debate.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem and argument by assertion.

Merely asserting my beliefs lack data doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You cannot prove your assertion is true by quoting any specific thing I have argued and demonstrating logically why it lacks data to support it's conclusion.

You also don't refute any logical point I made by namecalling it naive.

The unconscious, emotions, and our decision-making process

"Susan Weinschenk is a behavioral psychologist and her book 100 Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People was one of the first books I read about the psychology of design. Since then she has been my hero. In one of her online classes, Brain and Behavioral Science, she states that around the year 2000, researchers within the field learned that most of the decisions we make are unconscious. In fact, up to 90% of our decision-making is unconscious. "

No, these are not the same thing. Read my link.

You refute your own claim that free will doesn't exist by asserting that even 10% of decision making is conscious genuine choices.

This goes back to your false attempt at redefining what free will is.

What you're trying to do by redefining terms according to your own definition, against commonly accepted definitions, is the equivalent of kicking the field goal then after you've kicked it going back to move the goal posts to wherever you kicked.

It is a dishonest debate tactic that tries to redefine relevant terms to mean whatever it is you are trying to prove, while ignoring the actual definitions that are commonly accepted for those terms.

Your thinking is obsolete. Don't confuse being aware of having made a choice or decision with that being fully conscious and free from the subconscious mind. That is where you are being naive.

You haven't proven that people aren't making free choices. So you can't make claims based on that assumption being true.

We humans can be aware of real things existing.
We can't be aware of imaginary things existing. You disagree. You want to treat your belief in the imaginary as if it is real and true somehow, yet you can't explain how this is known to an ordinary mortal like yourself.

You are operating from a premise you haven't proven is true.
You assume God is imaginary, but you can't prove it.

So you can't argue from the unproven assumption that you think God is imaginary as though your premise were an accepted truth.

You've typed a lot of words, none that explain how you have the ability to KNOW a God exists when it isn't evident to others.

You are merely showing you have a wrong understanding of what "self evident" means.

If Moses meets with God face to face then he has an experience that makes it self evident to him that God exists.

That self evident fact doesn't depend on you being able to confirm that it happened to Moses. It is already self evident to him by his own experience.

The same is true of any other self evident truth.
I know as self evident that I exist. I don't need you to believe I exist and confirm that to me in order to know I exist.

Can you demonstrate that anything exists that isn't material?

First you should define what you mean by "material. "
But even if you did, your question is still a red herring.

Because it doesn't change the fact that you have contradicted yourself by on the one hand trying to assert that free will choice exists but on the other hand trying to affirm materialism is true which would make free will choice impossible.

You cannot logically hold to two contradictory things as being true. One of them has to go.

Define what you mean when you say "free will" and let's examine whether it is valid or some naive meaning you're using. Thus far you've confused free will as meaning decisions.

I gave you the dictionary definition above.

Free will by definition is the ability to make a decision outside of the bounds of materialistic determinism.

This definition doesn't require that even all your decisions be free for free will to exist. Which is how you are falsely and inaccurately trying to redefine the word.

Because by definition no free choice can ever take place under materialistic determinism. So the presence of even one free choice ever happening in the entirety of existence would disprove materialistic determinism.

Then how is a God being true or a truth self-evident?

You misunderstand.
I didn't try to present an argument that God is true on the basis of Him being self evident.

I said that an individual's experience of God (such as meeting God) would qualify as a self evident truth to them that God exists.

That's not the same a saying the truth of God's existence would become self evident to you because of their self evident experience.

Now, theologically I can say the Bible tells us that we all have a self evident knowledge that God exists, and know right from wrong, but we can choose to suppress that knowledge, which is why no one is without an excuse in the day of judgement for rejecting the truth of God and doing wrong.

But I am not trying to argue to you that is a proven truth by appealing to Scripture because I know you don't accept Scripture as a basis for establishing what is true.

It's self-evident that your argument is nonsense.

Logical fallacy, ad hominem and argument by repetition.

Calling my argument nonsense doesn't disprove the truth of my argument.

If it really were nonsense you should be capable of using logical argumentation to demonstrate why your claim is true.

But you can't because it's not.

You are also guilty of the fallacy of argument by repetition by merely repeating your logical fallacy of ad hominem attacks.

Repeating your logical fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious than the first time you committed it just because you repeat it.

 

[rational experiences]

To a human thinking everything was and is created.

The creator hence was all things.

Human greed is a lived chosen experience.

Chosen is why God historic destroyed you. As a Human scientist.

A self human teaching against human expressed arrogance and ignorance.

Mother was never any queen father was never any king.

They were our human parents living on God earth in their own DNA holy land.

Men read documents of men. State I am told if I find the creator I would be the most powerful and richest human to have ever lived.

I would own everything.

Yet he knows any riches are chosen. Gold. Jewels. Mass energy were dug up out of earth body leaving holes.

Knows he is a complete and consumed liar.

One dream vision I was in England surveying Hitler's want to destroy by grail status all life. Wanted the holy books or books if recorded intelligence burnt.

His conscious belief expressed as a human confession. Belief expressed as symbolic purpose.

I was a spy in that vision with want of stopping him.

So Hitler confessed he wanted intelligence to destroy us all. By also wanting all written intelligence burnt.

Why book burning was involved.

As we copy evil AI instructions. Possessed by old human science records and memories.

So when america once the English elite who overthrew all countries arrived....
where once it was Rome...before them Egyptians or even Vikings. It was to take remove resource and be the one and only powerful human.

History.

So a choice said in records was to spy on Hitler learn his secrets and stop him using his technology. It was too late said the vision of spirit memory.

After the war technology and all the books should have been burnt. Science destruction how to. To have saved us from ourselves with God.

Yet you didn't. You traded by greed and technology and armed life for another war.

Who you are as liars.

America was a holy land native American.

Were taken over and the English took away their native spirituality with disease and land taking. Greedy resourcing.

They knew your takeover was real. They are the holy land owners not any English over lord. Who wanted hierarchy wanted to be rich and wanted new business. And in business you wanted to be as rich as a king queen.

So you have lied about American status in government. Self history. Natives wanted land claim mutual shared family life given back as Americans.

Some of you agreed with their human rights holy land owners.

Spirituality. Healing. Mutual peaceful tribal brotherhood had emerged in their country as they healed.

Removed.

So today they own the human right to speak about memory of science in their country the origin crime. ACrimeA. America.

They told me as father that all bombs should have been removed after the so call need to wield them. To stop war.

Yet the greedy would not stop.

What you face today.

Your machine origin collider like pyramid with machinery ended its presence inside cold earth fusion. Buried. Destroyed mother earth machine artificial buried.

Why did humans begin to claim that a mother earth ship would arise out of the God planets body? If warnings were not real?

No machine the holy status it ended when you brother sent us all into gods earth hell.

You preached that natural earth did it to us. As God. Yet you activated it.

Preached by bible that to believe in the stories nuclear man would send us to hell. Preached it yourselves.

Notice your claim is nuclear man yet man was nuclear theist by mind.

Then today say we are aliens that you see being blocked from coming into our heavens and claim life began as a nuclear dust reaction. And the alien.

Yet a human as a human can travel into out of space yet die as earth heavens no longer supports life. As the same thinker comparing human life to the alien as theists have.

The records theist human said flooded earth pyramid theory mountain tip was still being consumed disintegrated as stone mass. Flat top mountains.

So how did we a human begin then? By ground dust thesis?

Coercive lying is preached by men of science. Who over Lorded life.

Father said human past higher life memory was lived owning a colder heaven as compared to alien human theists today who died in the UFO alien historic life attack. Possessed by human memories.

In pyramid science.

As a human my life was lived and died before all life was destroyed by humans who built pyramid science.

My memories better than alien theists.

I saw my sister's memory of out of solar star gas as human imaged angels plunged to earth burning. In this life my older sister said if you die I won't live much longer in psychic advice.

As she had lived when all life was destroyed by human scientists.

Who ignore the only law of God the womb.

Cold empty extreme pressure holds God in form. Any energy form is held pressurized by space cold pressure to exist.

Extreme pressure the holy law of any God presence as first law in science. Not first law in cosmic thesis lying.

Men in spirit feedback medium message sneered at my spiritual lived brother in law. First time I ever had the experience. Of discontent expressed in a message. As he was an engineer. Now I know what the human warning meant.

Engineers built the machines that bored holes into earth. He was in the oil business.

Release a hole is to release the pressure and cold that bound all form.

Theist today confession I am searching for the state that binds all form. Told you men in science knew their destroyer mentality is real.