The Evidence Points to Atheism

Argument 1: Non Cognitivism Con lists various attributes and claims they're primary attributes, but this is wrong. They're secondary. Strongatheism.net explains why [1] It is important to note that the question is particularly, "What is God?", rather than inquiring as to the capacities, actions, or character traits of such a thing. The inquiry posed by the ANC(Argument from Non Cognitvism) demands a comprehensive presentation of the identity of whatever that is which the theist is asserting. This is necessary for two reasons: Firstly, if one were to say that, "The dress is beautiful", and I were to respond by asking, "What is a dress?""it would hardly be a help to me for that individual to respond, "It has a nice design and is comfortable". While it being comfortable and being designed attractively may play a factor in its being called beautiful, my question has not been answered. I have not asked for further secondary characteristics of the dress, but rather what the dress is itself that it has the capacity to be called "beautiful". Similarly, when the Strong-Atheist inquires, "What is God?""the theist"s reiterating of the various capacities and secondary character traits found in scriptural texts and elsewhere is insufficient. The question inquires specifically into what "God" is, rather than what "God" can do, likes to do, or has done." ..To say that an "unie" possesses wisdom in proportion to its nature"while stipulating that such wisdom is different in kind from man"s wisdom and that the nature of an "unie" is unknowable"contributes nothing to our understanding of "unie" or to the meaning of the attributes when applied to an "unie. ...Primary Attributes: or fundamental character of a thing, may be defined as the basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existant"s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified Secondary Attributes: the character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise. ...none of these descriptions actually answer our question....all relational attributes"dealing with comparisons between whatever the theist means by the term "God" and the universe, or humanity in general. The remaining premises are secondary in nature, observing what abilities or characteristic traits "God" has as a result of His metaphysical nature as an existant. But what "God" is as a metaphysical being"the primary attribute of the term itself, remains unprovided. Argument 2: Argument from Reasonable non-belief. Con completely ignores my argument. Saying one day atheists won't be atheists does nothing to refute the argument. 1-2. Cosmological Argument Con says Proof that the cause is God: The attributes of this cause must match the attributes in (A. Primary Attributes) as written above near the top of this page This is a baseless assertion. Con hasn't justified or proven the attributes. Until Con gives the attributes with reasons why they fit, the argument is irrelevant to the debate. 3. Moral Argument Murder for fun is wrong because it is against Gods will. Anything contrary to Gods will is wrong. The argument is 1. It objective morals exist, God exists 2. Objective morality does exist 3. Therefore God exists However, now we know Con defines morality as what God wills. So the argument is 1. What God wills is objectivity moral 2. Therefore God exists. Con is begging the question here. I do lean more to the side of objective morals existing. We don't need a God to account for these morals The unit of ethics is values. Values are things that one must work to gain or keep (a simple example of that is nutrition). These values are short-handed ways of expressing moral principles (ex. "we need to eat because otherwise we die"), and moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism). The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly. By evaluating what values are being effected by a given action in its context, we can express a sound moral judgment on that action (this was a good thing to do, this was a bad thing to do). This is true regardless of your actual moral system " we all have values, implicitly or explicitly. The real argument is about those scientific and social facts and what values they entail. There cannot be any argument on whether there are objective moral principles: it"s a discussion about as ridiculous as asking whether the Earth exists. We all need to act to survive. [2] Simplified (1) Actions have consequences. (2) These consequences are within the province of causality, since they are material. (3) Therefore, the relation between actions and consequences is objective. [3] Euthyphro's dilemma Con says he's not too sure on this one. I can say the same on objective morality. If one can't account for objective morality. If objective morality was proven, it doesn't follow God put them there. Just above this, Con says. "Anything contrary to Gods will is wrong" Michael Martin reformed the question. "Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character?" 4. Fine Tuning. Con claims these arguments aren't coherent, but doesn't explain why. I also asked Con to provide a specific example of fine tuning. Here's the summery If the constants were fine tuned by a natural process, we would expect the universe to be extremely large, old, mostly deadly, and life should be rare. ...a god does not need vast trillions of star systems and billions of years to make life. He doesn"t need vast quantities of lethal space and deadly matter. Only a godless universe needs that.[4] The fine tuning argument seems to say the more amazing and complex the universe is, the more likely it had a creator. God would need to be more amazing and complex to create this universe, but theists say God is uncaused. So the universe under theistic reasoning needs no God to become amazing and complex. 5. Ontological Argument. Con again ignores my response, yet he did clear up what version of the Ontological argument he's using. "God is a being of which no greater thing exists or can be thought of. Therefore, since we can conceive of God as the greatest of all things that exist, then God must exist." I can conceive of a more powerful being that can eliminate the former ad infinitum. Furthermore if God is suppose to be the greatest thing that can be conceived. Yet 2 Gods would be better than 1 and 3 God better than 2 ad infinitum. The Ontological argument can be defended, because "God" is a meaningless word. It works with any meaningless word 1. An "Orgh" is that than which no greater can be conceived. 2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea. 3. If the "Orgh" does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater thing exists or can be thought of. 4. Therefore, the "Orgh" exists in reality. Con needs to give "God" a meaningful definition before we can discuss any arguments whatsoever, but specifically with the ontological argument. The resolution is affirmed. Back to Con! Sources in link below [1] http://tny.cz...