Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

What's your justification for supposing that?

You don't think your god is metaphysical? Given that there is no more compelling evidence for your god than any other,

Oh, then the answer's easy: I don't believe that what you're saying is true. I do believe that there's excellent evidence for the existence of God, and find it utterly puzzling that a skeptic could ever so deny the evidence of his own eyes as to pretend it was a dubious matter. And, apparently, since 96% of the world's population thinks it's plausible there is a God or gods, and only 4% has convinced themselves enough to be actual Atheists, I think I'm in a rather large company of sympathizers, and the Atheists really have very little to work with, even prima facie.

Then there are mathematical and scientific evidences that strongly imply the existence of God...things like the impossibility of infinite regress in a causal chain, the observable fact of entropy, and the established existence of irreducible complexity and compound symbiosis in nature, for examples. Beyond that, I also believe that God has revealed Himself propositionally, in revelation, and personally, in Jesus Christ. And I evaluate things by what makes sense: by preference of the best explanation of such things. And then I have my own personal experience with God as well...which, while not evidence to you, since it isn't your experience, by your own testimony, is certainly massively compelling to me. So I see an absolute abundance of evidence that God does, in fact, exist. I'm not at all in doubt that I have, by far, the better case...at least at the first.

So I want to know what makes these disbelievers, this 4% of actual Atheists, so confident in their denial of what the vast majority of other people find so highly plausible. And the burden of proof is clearly on them, because I think it's quite obvious that the most obvious conclusion is that there IS a God, not that there's not.

[Harbal]

So I want to know what makes these disbelievers, this 4% of actual Atheists, so confident in their denial of what the vast majority of other people find so highly plausible.

For me, it is nothing to do with confidence in the denial of God's existence, that would be actively taking a position on the matter. All your stated reasons for believing in God make absolutely no impression on me, and the whole idea of God, as described in the Bible, strikes me as utterly implausible, so I simply don't accept it as being remotely true. And that's it; it it just one of the various things that some others believe, but I do not. I'm sure this must be the case for many of those who would describe themselves as atheists.

And the burden of proof is clearly on them,

I wouldn't disclose the proof, even if it were possible to have it, so I really don't feel that burden.

[promethean75]

"of what the vast majority of other people find so highly plausible."

There are reasonable explanations for this phenomena and some other details to consider.

Most christians, jews and muslims would be much more inclined to become skeptical of their beliefs if they were a) exposed to the vast sea of atheist literature and argument that's out there, and b) were intelligent enough to grasp what they were reading/hearing.

There is no doubt in my mind that if i aksed ten christians to pretend to be an atheist and explain to me why believing a god exists, is irrational, .5 of them would be able to do so convincingly. Now how can they even begin to be skeptical if they don't understand why they can and should be? I'm confident that very many of the average-to-bright christians would become skeptical if only they turned the TV off and got out of the house more.

Not only that, but those same christians/jews/muslims, if aksed why they believe a god exists, will answer 'well where did everything come from?' That's it. That's the comprehensive proof provided by the typical christian/jew/muslim. So not only are they ignorant of atheist's reasoning but they're also ignorant of the more comprehensive arguments for a god's existence (like Aquinas, Al-Ghazali, Descartes, Leibniz, Augustine, Maimonides, etc)

Clearly these people haven't thought a lick about the matter and are just towing the line becuz 'everybody else believes it'.

Excluding these mental midgets, the other portion of people who 'find it plausible' are the ones who recognize the silliness of the biblical religions but still feel and believe there is some 'higher power' at work in the universe. These are the brighter ones, but not yet, as with the others, exposed to atheist argument and reasoning.

So no, claiming that becuz so many people believe in a god, it must be plausible, is no defense of religion. If anything, its a rather bleak report on the intellectual state of the world.

[Immanuel Can]

All your stated reasons for believing in God make absolutely no impression on me,

I know. It's a mystery. All it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

[Harbal]

All your stated reasons for believing in God make absolutely no impression on me,

I know. It's a mystery. All it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

If there are things in nature, the world, the universe, that strike you as beyond explanation, what is wrong with just admitting you don't know the answer? That seems more sensible than just inserting whatever happens to please you most into the gap.

[Gary Childress]

ll it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

LOL! "Evidence"?????

[promethean75]

Did he just say 'evidence', Gary?!

Let's hope this guy never becomes a district attorney. Crime rates'll skyrocket!

[Immanuel Can]

All your stated reasons for believing in God make absolutely no impression on me,

I know. It's a mystery. All it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

If there are things in nature, the world, the universe, that strike you as beyond explanation, what is wrong with just admitting you don't know the answer? That seems more sensible than just inserting whatever happens to please you most into the gap.

Absolutely. But when even your own eyes give you every reason to suspect something is true, a wise man checks it out, does he not? And if a person doesn't happen to know the evidence for this or that proposition, does a wise person just assume there isn't any? And yet, this is what Atheist skeptics seem to do all the time; their argument is, "If I don't know about it, it can't be real." One wonders, then, who promised them that they would always be guaranteed to know everything.

[promethean75]

"One wonders, then, who promised them that they would always be guaranteed to know everything."

Fideists i can tolerate, but guys like u who tryda prove that what can only be a matter of faith can in fact be proven philosophically, are unconscionable intellectual ruffians who should be arrested at once.

[promethean75]

Look at your homeboy Wittgenstein. He had a weird 'mystical' experience in the trenches but he never tried to talk about it. Why not. Becuz u can't talk about it, bro, and whereof we cannot speak we must be silent or whatever.

[Harbal]

I know. It's a mystery. All it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

If there are things in nature, the world, the universe, that strike you as beyond explanation, what is wrong with just admitting you don't know the answer? That seems more sensible than just inserting whatever happens to please you most into the gap.

Absolutely. But when even your own eyes give you every reason to suspect something is true, a wise man checks it out, does he not?

Without being given a specific example of such a situation, I don't know what you are referring to, so I can't really respond.

And if a person doesn't happen to know the evidence for this or that proposition, does a wise person just assume there isn't any?

Again, without knowing what sort of thing you have in mind when you say that, I don't know what I can possibly say.

And yet, this is what Atheist skeptics seem to do all the time; their argument is, "If I don't know about it, it can't be real."

Well I am technically an atheist, and I am a bit sceptical by nature, but I don't say that. And I'm guessing you don't have any statistics to show how many "Atheist skeptics" do say it, so I must treat that claim with some scepticism. Not that it matters, because I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone other than myself.

One wonders, then, who promised them that they would always be guaranteed to know everything.

I don't know anything about such promises, I only know none have been made to me.

I remember not knowing how a radio worked. The thought of someone speaking into a microphone several hundred miles away and the words almost instantaneously coming out of a speaker in a little box on my kitchen windowsill seemed quite magical to me once. Then, at some point, I had reason to do a bit of research into electronics, which subsequently removed most of the mystery. Not that I now thoroughly understand the intricacies of what is actually happening, but I know enough to realise the process is perfectly explainable. In the context of the entirety of human history, it is only recently that anyone knew anything about radio waves, and how to transmit them, and there was a time when everyone would have thought of such a thing as actual magic. What I am saying is that we have a long history of not knowing how things work, and then eventually finding out.

[Immanuel Can]

"One wonders, then, who promised them that they would always be guaranteed to know everything."

Fideists i can tolerate, but guys like u who tryda prove that what can only be a matter of faith can in fact be proven philosophically, are unconscionable intellectual ruffians who should be arrested at once.

And yet, you only believe that on faith. So you should perhaps begin by arresting yourself.

[Dubious]

I do believe that there's excellent evidence for the existence of God...

That's true! It's necessary to believe in evidence that isn't there if one wishes to believe it. There's evidence that theism relies on precisely that for its total lack of evidence.

[Walker]

ll it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

LOL! "Evidence"?????

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God or deities began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that today would be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.

Get a grip, Gary.

Perhaps these pointers will help you to pursue your inquiry, if you are in fact honestly inquiring.

In the adult world, stamping your foot and demanding to be fed information is laughable.

[Gary Childress]

ll it suggests is that there is no interest in reasons or evidence.

LOL! "Evidence"?????

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

The Western tradition of philosophical discussion of the existence of God or deities began with Plato and Aristotle, who made arguments that today would be categorized as cosmological. Other arguments for the existence of God or deities have been proposed by St. Anselm, who formulated the first ontological argument; Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Thomas Aquinas, who presented their own versions of the cosmological argument (the kalam argument and the first way, respectively); René Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God or deities is logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued for a sensus divinitatis, which gives each human a knowledge of God's existence.

Get a grip, Gary.

Perhaps these pointers will help you to pursue your inquiry, if you are in fact honestly inquiring.

In the adult world, stamping your foot and demanding to be fed information is laughable.

If IC wants to believe in the Bible, that's fine. However, IC accusing others of not being interested in "evidence" is rich. What evidence is there for the Biblical creation story? What evidence is there that the Bible is the authoritative word on such matters? If everyone is 'entitled to their opinion' then my opinion is that the Bible is not the ultimate authoritative account of the divine.