Hi

[Boreasos]

---

Any statement that contains a "should" or an "ought" is a moral statement. We use these all the time in science, so I believe moral laws are necessary in order to conduct the scientific method.

Should or ought statements are normative statements, and though they are often used in conjunction with morals in social contexts, this is not the case with science. For starters you are not supposed to use normative statements in science, as they are often based on emotion and not rational thought. If you nonetheless were to use them, and wish to connect them to morals, it depends how you define morals. If you define morals as the feeling of right and wrong as is most common in everyday speech then no, no morals are required. If you define it simply as a differentiation between correct and incorrect(a bit of a stretch but an arguable position) then it can be tenuously applied in some contexts.

Well I believe a rational creator is necessary for several reasons, two of which would be...
The other presuppositions I listed above are completely rational if a rational creator is exists. If the universe came into being without a rational mind behind it there is no reason at all to make these presuppositions.
The second reason is that there would be no reason for humans to develop rational minds from irrational events and matter. Our ability to think rationally I feel is one of the greatest evidences that we are made in the image of another rational being. Irrational events never begot rationalism. So that's one reason I believe in God. Thoughts?

Your first point is an argument from ignorance and a presupposition which is not rationally defensible.

Your second point is a string of arguments from ignorance from start to finish, with a sprinkling of fallacies to top it off.

---

To your first point, I disagree. Even if you are making the statement that science "should" be devoid of all morals, this in itself is a moral statement as to how science should be conducted ideally. So I am sorry, moral laws are completely necessary to obtain knowledge through investigation.

I agree that saying science should be devoid of morals is a moral statement, but you are making a fallacious inference in claiming that it therefore follows that science requires morals to obtain knowledge through investigation. The actual practice of science requires no morals, though morals are often introduced by us humans in places where they need not exist.

As to your second point, it is not an argument from ignorance at all. This would only be the case if there was insufficient investigation into the matter, which of course there has been plenty of investigation. These presuppositions could not have arisen from a universe that had no rational creator, yet they have to be true in order to gain any knowledge through investigation. The Christian has rational reasons as to why these things are true the atheist just assumes they are true for no real rational reason.

Your third point, again not an argument from ignorance because there has been sufficient investigation into the matter. There is no observed or theorized manner as to which rationality could arise from irrational events and matter. I am a little surprised and disappointed; I was not expecting you to improperly use the argument from ignorance accusation just to avoid the issue

I stand by my statement, they were both arguments from ignorance. As for your reply:
You are fallaciously equating investigation with evidence, you infer conclusions from false premises, you make unsupported statements about the nature of the universe and claim them as fact, you presume to know the state of mind of a large group of diverse individuals and repeat your offense of arguments from ignorance. Finally you attempt to appeal to emotion by pretending disappointment, a poorly veiled personal slight, though that is not important in light of your other mistakes.