God exists.

In his response, Con asserts that there are many other ways to account for universal morality, and says that I have committed a logical fallacy in my argument. That would be true if it was a deductive argument, but I’m actually using inductive reasoning to point out that if moral universalism is true, it is more likely that any theory that accounts for it is true. As I will show, the alternatives Con suggest fail to account for moral universalism in practice, so the argument holds true.What Con is effectively saying is that he can construct a moral theory based on self-interest that would instruct a serial killer to go against his self-interest. I challenge Con to do so, but it is not possible. As I showed previously, pragmatism must be considered a moral axiom. The fact is that deontology, virtue ethics, and agent-neutral utilitarianism are not pragmatic.Making Stuff UpCan we simply make up any ideas we want? Of course not. Adding additional assumptions to a theory just to make it “aesthetically pleasing,” like Plato’s idea that we must become donkeys, is irrational and goes against Occam’s razor. In contrast, every assumption made by theism is necessary for moral universalism to work, as I showed previously. That said, anything assumed about the nature of God beyond his basic attributes can be rightfully challenged, like the idea that he is an old man with a beard, or even that “he” is male or has any gender to speak of.Am I saying it would be awful if God didn’t exist? Yes, that’s essentially my argument, but it’s a valid one to make based on pragmatic reasoning, and it applies just as much to the debate between realism and solipsism as it does to the existence of God and the nature of consciousness.The Problem of EvilIf God is omnipotent (having the ability to do anything within his nature), omniscient (knowing everything about the universe’s past, present, and future), and omnibenevolent (possessing moral perfection), then why is there suffering in the world? I’m going to be presenting Alfred North Whitehead process theology, with some modification, as a potential response. Essentially, if he were to intervene in the world and prevent evil from occurring, he would undermine morality and free will, as shown below: 1. God’s omnibenevolence means that he would make the right decision in any situation.2. Not all situations are represented in reality.3. God must have perfect knowledge of the consequences of not just every real decision, but also every possible decision, including those he is capable of doing.4. If God is capable of preventing negative consequences, there would be no pragmatic reason for anyone (except God) to call anything wrong at all. Also, 5. Free will exists.6. Free will is the power to choose between options and bring about effects on reality without being constrained by fate. 7. Having the consequences of an intended action removed violates free will. 8. God is not capable of preventing negative consequences without contradiction. Here’s a thought experiment to clarify. Imagine a world where people are free to do whatever they wanted without any harm because God constantly intervenes to prevent bad consequences. Let’s say a bully gets angry and shouts at a small child who would prefer not to be shouted at. In order to prevent harm, God changes the sound waves in the child’s ear into something kind and friendly instead, while the child’s perception of the bully’s face is changed into a friendly smile rather than a scowl.In this scenario, the bully doesn’t really have free will because he hopes to communicate a message to the child, but his efforts are thwarted. It also seems highly counterintuitive to assign blame for his action because it does not cause any harm, nor could it have. Thus, God needs to allow evil to occur to uphold free will and morality, and in the long run, humanity will hopefully learn the lessons they need to bring about a utopian society naturally (after all, a world full of unhappy “free” agents without suffering could hardly be considered good). The same can be said of natural evil: it was and is necessary to give evolving life forms, including humanity, the challenges they need to achieve higher levels of wellbeing in the future.According to Björn Brembs, the author of a 2010 study on free will in invertebrates, “Even the simple animals are not the predictable automatons that they are often portrayed to be.”[1] God could not have simply given free will to biological organisms at some arbitrary point in history. Instead, he had to give even early lifeforms the freedom to develop according to their (admittedly incredibly limited) freedom.Is this essentially deism? No, because God can still nudge humanity onto his preferred path. And unlike deism, this understanding of God as someone who works for humanity’s long-term improvement is personally meaningful and can offer great solace during times of hardship.Sources[1] http://www.bbc.com...