<![CDATA[Atheist Forums - Philosophy]]> https://atheistforums.org/ Wed, 13 May 2026 14:46:03 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Yes God Exists]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66669.html Fri, 24 Apr 2026 19:27:30 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66669.html Introduction:

I am not claiming to be an expert by any means and the following post is off the cuff and written without much effort. I just have ideas I'd like to share and have some discussion about them. Before any constructive discussion can be had about the existence of God, we must first unpack what it means for God to exist. Existence is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness". While society's use of the word "existence" is not exclusively limited to this definition, I contend that God does exist even by this standard.

Different levels of existence:

Manifestation: God is often compared to fantasy or mythical creatures. The unicorn is often said to not exist. However, the depiction and likeness of a unicorn is an easy thing to find and you would be hard pressed to find someone living in civilized society that could not give you a fairly accurate description of what a unicorn is. The fact that I can draw a picture of a unicorn or hold one in my hand suggests that a unicorn does exist. The main argument against a unicorn's existence is referring to a physical reality relating solely to the biological manifestation of such a creature. Given the rising fascination with unicorns and the insistence on using them for purposes of storytelling, humanity is going to greater and greater lengths to make the idea of a unicorn come alive. It is only a matter of time before scientists use genetic manipulation to make a biological unicorn a reality if they haven't already. It could also be argued that unicorns were born out of an idea conceived in the human consciousness and therefore does not exist independent of human intelligence or thought, but this same argument would invalidate the existence of every man-made object which would all arguably continue to exist even if every human being died out.

Position: Many of God's titles are positions of authority or responsibility. The creation of positions is an essential part of human society to ensure cooperation and efficiency. The existence of a position such as The President of the United States is only an idea; however, this idea has a real impact on our world. A position exists regardless of who fills it and like the position of Caesar in Ancient Rome, will continue to exist far after its usefulness has expired.

As Potential: In order for us to properly navigate our reality we must be aware of potentials and how they impact the outcomes. In quantum mechanics these potentials manifest as superpositions. If you cannot conceive of a version of you that fails at something then you will arrogantly and foolishly move forward without taking the proper precautions to avoid failure. Having humility is to admit or understand that the version of you that fails actually exists and you must proceed in a manner to avoid it manifesting into our physical reality, meaning you must learn from your mistakes. Pride can fool others for a time, but eventually the price of foolish decisions comes due. In the same respect, only those that can envision a reality where they overcome impossible odds are the ones capable of such feats.

Subconscious: There are many parts of the subconscious mind that we still don't understand and much of our subconscious dictates our everyday reality. Our instincts, our primal nature, our defense mechanisms, and most or our habits and behaviors are borne out of the subconscious. These things exist on such a level that we must grapple with them and are arguably the most important challenges of our generation. Whether we describe these as mental illness, demons, malfunctions, human nature, chaos, or original sin does not negate the reality of them. 

The Existence of God:

As a Manifestation: It is often stated that humanity invented God. While it may be true that God was an idea created by humans, the idea has a real impact on our world today and depictions of God in stories and movies are common-place. While Jesus has been argued to be the biological manifestation of God, I contend that a biological manifestation was never a necessary criterion for God's existence. The impact that faith in God has on the world can be observed and even measured. And there is no doubt that a major part of religion is to prophesy, or to call forth the things they desire to be true. The purpose of faith is not about believing the obvious but about manifesting the desired. Each religion, cult, or worldview has a version of God they are trying to manifest and many attempts have been made to make it happen, Jesus being one example of that.

As a Position: Humanity has figured out through much trial and error that stable authority demands that there be one authority that is above all other authorities. Because humans are the highest level of intelligence we know of, we demand that these positions of supreme authority be filled by a human being. Every worldview, every religion, and every tradition seeks world peace. The only way we have conceived of accomplishing this is through submitting all people to one authority through conquest or cooperation. At the head of that one authority will be a position that is more powerful than all other positions. Conceivably the person that humanity would decide to put in that position is the most deserving or the best fit for the job. This future position of supreme authority over the governmental entity that controls all humans everywhere is an inevitable outcome and correlates with religious predictions. The person that fills this position can be compared to the Messiah, the Buddha, the Mahdi, the Ubermensch, the Godman, the King of Kings, etc.

As Potential: The multiverse theory suggests that alternate universes exist alongside our reality. While I agree that they exist as potentials, the difference between them and our reality is consciousness. Based on the observer effect, our consciousness is intertwined with how things manifest into our physical reality. The quantum realm existing outside of time and space correlates well to how the spiritual realm is described in ancient texts. Therefore God, and all infinite versions of God, exist in the quantum/spiritual realm as potential interacting with us attempting to manifest just one of the many possible futures that will turn God into a physical reality. Until the final details on who or what God is, God exists in superposition. As Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive, all versions of God exist until only 1 version manifests while the other versions collapse and cease to exist.

In Our Subconscious: Academics often theorize that God is borne out of our subconscious mind and it is attached to some primal need. If this is true, then the idea of God was not conceived by humanity but rather God is something that occurs naturally.

My Personal Take:

To use Christianity as an easy example we can see a set of promises that seem on the face to be outlandish, but I will argue that it does not take faith at all to believe in them. Those promises are eternal life, God's kingdom, God on the throne, heaven,  resurrection, and perfect justice. When you look at every tradition, every empire, every religion, and every worldview they are all attempting to accomplish the same goals. To create healthcare that will keep you alive indefinitely (eternal life), create a one world authority (God's kingdom), to place a good person in the seat of power over that authority (God), to make society a utopia for all (heaven), to bring back our loved ones (resurrection), and to establish fair laws (perfect justice).

Movies, museums, statues, and hologram concerts are all ways we are resurrecting the past. With AI we are now resurrecting historical figures by creating an AI version of them. It is only a matter of time before we are able to use quantum technology to develop an objective version of past events and resurrect with perfect accuracy. Using robots or cloning technology we will eventually bring back the dead. Some people will be brought back to praise like heroes and martyrs, while others brought back to be put on trial like dictators and assassins.

Regarding the attributes of God, that is not the point of this post. However, with technology is it becoming easier and easier to conceive of these possibilities. For example if we eventually programmed Google to know everything, our ability to ask Google questions would make us all-knowing. Simplify the transaction through neural link and it is not far fetched to imagine a future human with their mind having instant access to all the knowledge that exists. The Hebrew word for God is Elohim which is a plural. Believers often think of becoming one with God and being given some sort of authority like a throne. If you see God as a human made entity like a government or corporation rather than a person, you'll better understand how God can do the things that God can do. The Lord on the other hand is the person that has supreme authority within the entity they called God and just like Trump is often conflated with America and America is spoken about like it has human qualities, we understand that America is not a person but made of persons. Trump is the person with the highest authority and what Trump says and does is as if America says and does it.

The main point is that what Christianity and all other religions promise is what all of humanity is already working toward and are just inevitable outcomes. This may seem like an exoneration of religion, but in fact it is the opposite. Religious leaders pervert their own scriptures to keep themselves in power and serve to keep the idea of God in the realm of mystery and unknown to prevent or delay the inevitable outcome. The Church serves to put off those that would attempt to understand and to prevent humanity from realizing that these manifestations are not only ours to decide but they are also our responsibility. By negating that responsibility we delay the inevitability by another generation.

Just to throw in an unrelated philosophical element to this it is often asked "What came first, the chicken or the egg?". I would contend within the egg is the potential to become a chicken and within the chicken is the potential to lay an egg. One cannot exist without the potential of the other simultaneously existing. Therefore if one exists at all, they both exist. Within humanity is the potential to hatch into God, and within God is the potential to create humanity. To ask what came first applies a chronological order to things and the obvious answer is that the egg came first, buy we all know that eggs come from chickens which creates the conundrum. I contest that the conundrum is from the inability to understand time as an experience and not a constant, which is the "outside of time and space" argument. You may say that the logical is circular, but that is the point. The end is also the beginning.

Because this can be debated at length and go off on millions of different tangents, I would ask that you refrain from going off on a long rant about your personal views and stick engaging with the ideas I have presented by giving me direct and to-the-point questions I can answer. If you have a lot to say on the matter and would like a response from me then feel free to send me a direct message. Thank you.]]> Introduction:

I am not claiming to be an expert by any means and the following post is off the cuff and written without much effort. I just have ideas I'd like to share and have some discussion about them. Before any constructive discussion can be had about the existence of God, we must first unpack what it means for God to exist. Existence is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness". While society's use of the word "existence" is not exclusively limited to this definition, I contend that God does exist even by this standard.

Different levels of existence:

Manifestation: God is often compared to fantasy or mythical creatures. The unicorn is often said to not exist. However, the depiction and likeness of a unicorn is an easy thing to find and you would be hard pressed to find someone living in civilized society that could not give you a fairly accurate description of what a unicorn is. The fact that I can draw a picture of a unicorn or hold one in my hand suggests that a unicorn does exist. The main argument against a unicorn's existence is referring to a physical reality relating solely to the biological manifestation of such a creature. Given the rising fascination with unicorns and the insistence on using them for purposes of storytelling, humanity is going to greater and greater lengths to make the idea of a unicorn come alive. It is only a matter of time before scientists use genetic manipulation to make a biological unicorn a reality if they haven't already. It could also be argued that unicorns were born out of an idea conceived in the human consciousness and therefore does not exist independent of human intelligence or thought, but this same argument would invalidate the existence of every man-made object which would all arguably continue to exist even if every human being died out.

Position: Many of God's titles are positions of authority or responsibility. The creation of positions is an essential part of human society to ensure cooperation and efficiency. The existence of a position such as The President of the United States is only an idea; however, this idea has a real impact on our world. A position exists regardless of who fills it and like the position of Caesar in Ancient Rome, will continue to exist far after its usefulness has expired.

As Potential: In order for us to properly navigate our reality we must be aware of potentials and how they impact the outcomes. In quantum mechanics these potentials manifest as superpositions. If you cannot conceive of a version of you that fails at something then you will arrogantly and foolishly move forward without taking the proper precautions to avoid failure. Having humility is to admit or understand that the version of you that fails actually exists and you must proceed in a manner to avoid it manifesting into our physical reality, meaning you must learn from your mistakes. Pride can fool others for a time, but eventually the price of foolish decisions comes due. In the same respect, only those that can envision a reality where they overcome impossible odds are the ones capable of such feats.

Subconscious: There are many parts of the subconscious mind that we still don't understand and much of our subconscious dictates our everyday reality. Our instincts, our primal nature, our defense mechanisms, and most or our habits and behaviors are borne out of the subconscious. These things exist on such a level that we must grapple with them and are arguably the most important challenges of our generation. Whether we describe these as mental illness, demons, malfunctions, human nature, chaos, or original sin does not negate the reality of them. 

The Existence of God:

As a Manifestation: It is often stated that humanity invented God. While it may be true that God was an idea created by humans, the idea has a real impact on our world today and depictions of God in stories and movies are common-place. While Jesus has been argued to be the biological manifestation of God, I contend that a biological manifestation was never a necessary criterion for God's existence. The impact that faith in God has on the world can be observed and even measured. And there is no doubt that a major part of religion is to prophesy, or to call forth the things they desire to be true. The purpose of faith is not about believing the obvious but about manifesting the desired. Each religion, cult, or worldview has a version of God they are trying to manifest and many attempts have been made to make it happen, Jesus being one example of that.

As a Position: Humanity has figured out through much trial and error that stable authority demands that there be one authority that is above all other authorities. Because humans are the highest level of intelligence we know of, we demand that these positions of supreme authority be filled by a human being. Every worldview, every religion, and every tradition seeks world peace. The only way we have conceived of accomplishing this is through submitting all people to one authority through conquest or cooperation. At the head of that one authority will be a position that is more powerful than all other positions. Conceivably the person that humanity would decide to put in that position is the most deserving or the best fit for the job. This future position of supreme authority over the governmental entity that controls all humans everywhere is an inevitable outcome and correlates with religious predictions. The person that fills this position can be compared to the Messiah, the Buddha, the Mahdi, the Ubermensch, the Godman, the King of Kings, etc.

As Potential: The multiverse theory suggests that alternate universes exist alongside our reality. While I agree that they exist as potentials, the difference between them and our reality is consciousness. Based on the observer effect, our consciousness is intertwined with how things manifest into our physical reality. The quantum realm existing outside of time and space correlates well to how the spiritual realm is described in ancient texts. Therefore God, and all infinite versions of God, exist in the quantum/spiritual realm as potential interacting with us attempting to manifest just one of the many possible futures that will turn God into a physical reality. Until the final details on who or what God is, God exists in superposition. As Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive, all versions of God exist until only 1 version manifests while the other versions collapse and cease to exist.

In Our Subconscious: Academics often theorize that God is borne out of our subconscious mind and it is attached to some primal need. If this is true, then the idea of God was not conceived by humanity but rather God is something that occurs naturally.

My Personal Take:

To use Christianity as an easy example we can see a set of promises that seem on the face to be outlandish, but I will argue that it does not take faith at all to believe in them. Those promises are eternal life, God's kingdom, God on the throne, heaven,  resurrection, and perfect justice. When you look at every tradition, every empire, every religion, and every worldview they are all attempting to accomplish the same goals. To create healthcare that will keep you alive indefinitely (eternal life), create a one world authority (God's kingdom), to place a good person in the seat of power over that authority (God), to make society a utopia for all (heaven), to bring back our loved ones (resurrection), and to establish fair laws (perfect justice).

Movies, museums, statues, and hologram concerts are all ways we are resurrecting the past. With AI we are now resurrecting historical figures by creating an AI version of them. It is only a matter of time before we are able to use quantum technology to develop an objective version of past events and resurrect with perfect accuracy. Using robots or cloning technology we will eventually bring back the dead. Some people will be brought back to praise like heroes and martyrs, while others brought back to be put on trial like dictators and assassins.

Regarding the attributes of God, that is not the point of this post. However, with technology is it becoming easier and easier to conceive of these possibilities. For example if we eventually programmed Google to know everything, our ability to ask Google questions would make us all-knowing. Simplify the transaction through neural link and it is not far fetched to imagine a future human with their mind having instant access to all the knowledge that exists. The Hebrew word for God is Elohim which is a plural. Believers often think of becoming one with God and being given some sort of authority like a throne. If you see God as a human made entity like a government or corporation rather than a person, you'll better understand how God can do the things that God can do. The Lord on the other hand is the person that has supreme authority within the entity they called God and just like Trump is often conflated with America and America is spoken about like it has human qualities, we understand that America is not a person but made of persons. Trump is the person with the highest authority and what Trump says and does is as if America says and does it.

The main point is that what Christianity and all other religions promise is what all of humanity is already working toward and are just inevitable outcomes. This may seem like an exoneration of religion, but in fact it is the opposite. Religious leaders pervert their own scriptures to keep themselves in power and serve to keep the idea of God in the realm of mystery and unknown to prevent or delay the inevitable outcome. The Church serves to put off those that would attempt to understand and to prevent humanity from realizing that these manifestations are not only ours to decide but they are also our responsibility. By negating that responsibility we delay the inevitability by another generation.

Just to throw in an unrelated philosophical element to this it is often asked "What came first, the chicken or the egg?". I would contend within the egg is the potential to become a chicken and within the chicken is the potential to lay an egg. One cannot exist without the potential of the other simultaneously existing. Therefore if one exists at all, they both exist. Within humanity is the potential to hatch into God, and within God is the potential to create humanity. To ask what came first applies a chronological order to things and the obvious answer is that the egg came first, buy we all know that eggs come from chickens which creates the conundrum. I contest that the conundrum is from the inability to understand time as an experience and not a constant, which is the "outside of time and space" argument. You may say that the logical is circular, but that is the point. The end is also the beginning.

Because this can be debated at length and go off on millions of different tangents, I would ask that you refrain from going off on a long rant about your personal views and stick engaging with the ideas I have presented by giving me direct and to-the-point questions I can answer. If you have a lot to say on the matter and would like a response from me then feel free to send me a direct message. Thank you.]]> <![CDATA[Authenticity and purity]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66667.html Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:10:59 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66667.html
This is not a new phenomenon. On an individual level, such authenticity has used slogans advising to be true to yourself, to your real self, and so on. But this is not far from the political usage. That by identifying what we are at bottom, and claiming that is better than the cluttered mix of true and superficial self, and identifying with it, we can claim that we ultimately are better than we are. But how do we identify this core self, and is it not simply what we want it to be, much like MAGA is whatever Trump says it is. The authentic self, or authentic movement member, is the one who follows the bouncing ball wherever it leads.

And this seems to be a mirror reflection of the notion of purity. That an authentic person has excluded the impure, inauthentic elements from themselves and their behavior. In politics this takes the form of purity tests wherein you give up, or risk giving up, valuable things to demonstrate ones commitment to the politics, ideal, or optimum self. (Why do we have so many self-help movements and rituals?) So in a sense, the move toward embracing a politics or a metaphysics of self seems to be an attempt to shed oneself of the messy nuances and complexity of reality in favor of a simplified ideal that provides identifiable direction.

Is this what the function of these identities is, to eschew the dirtiness of reality for an image of self as superior because it is 'real', 'authentic', and 'true'?]]>
This is not a new phenomenon. On an individual level, such authenticity has used slogans advising to be true to yourself, to your real self, and so on. But this is not far from the political usage. That by identifying what we are at bottom, and claiming that is better than the cluttered mix of true and superficial self, and identifying with it, we can claim that we ultimately are better than we are. But how do we identify this core self, and is it not simply what we want it to be, much like MAGA is whatever Trump says it is. The authentic self, or authentic movement member, is the one who follows the bouncing ball wherever it leads.

And this seems to be a mirror reflection of the notion of purity. That an authentic person has excluded the impure, inauthentic elements from themselves and their behavior. In politics this takes the form of purity tests wherein you give up, or risk giving up, valuable things to demonstrate ones commitment to the politics, ideal, or optimum self. (Why do we have so many self-help movements and rituals?) So in a sense, the move toward embracing a politics or a metaphysics of self seems to be an attempt to shed oneself of the messy nuances and complexity of reality in favor of a simplified ideal that provides identifiable direction.

Is this what the function of these identities is, to eschew the dirtiness of reality for an image of self as superior because it is 'real', 'authentic', and 'true'?]]> <![CDATA[Veganism]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66641.html Fri, 13 Mar 2026 17:04:14 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66641.html <![CDATA[An Argument Against Determinism]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66639.html Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:50:49 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66639.html
[Image: image.png?ex=69b1880f&is=69b0368f&hm=de5...f3d59c709&]

Thoughts on this argument?

Source of the argument: https://substack.com/home/post/p-107082834

I think that there is a missing premise. And that premise is that incompatabilism about free will is true. Otherwise the conclusion doesn't follow from premise 7.]]>
[Image: image.png?ex=69b1880f&is=69b0368f&hm=de5...f3d59c709&]

Thoughts on this argument?

Source of the argument: https://substack.com/home/post/p-107082834

I think that there is a missing premise. And that premise is that incompatabilism about free will is true. Otherwise the conclusion doesn't follow from premise 7.]]> <![CDATA[What is pleasure?]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66628.html Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:46:00 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66628.html
I am happy for people to accept or reject that definition, because I think that someone could reject it and we still might not disagree substantively.

So then, what is the nature of pleasure?]]>
I am happy for people to accept or reject that definition, because I think that someone could reject it and we still might not disagree substantively.

So then, what is the nature of pleasure?]]> <![CDATA[The Issue of Indoctrination]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66609.html Sat, 07 Feb 2026 21:25:11 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66609.html  
1) You can build more non-verifiable beliefs on these original beliefs
 
2) The tendency of that person will be to keep this beliefs for a life time because that’s the nature of the Ego. (“If I know that I know then how can I be wrong” right?)
 
So modern education systems have moved away from this type of education technique. My physics teacher always made fun us by telling us that no matter what he told us we would simply follow him like a pack of sheep. When I was in college, I had a teacher who tested us with completely unrealistic claims on some issues (to which I usually was the only one in the class to object).
 
Yet, there is nothing wrong with indoctrination itself. It’s not that it is inherently evil. It’s just that it is outdated. Mankind did not begin its journey with the internet and chat GBT. Even a century ago, being able to buy newspapers and learn about the world was a great thing. 1000 years ago (when indoctrination was invented) books were rare and were a source of prestige for their owners. People knew that when they fed their cattle they would eat and that when they slept with their wives they would get babies. Nobles were mostly busy with their power struggles and priests would simply repeat their prayers every hour or so.
 
So indoctrination in these days was the main education tool. Even until the 1950’s doctors had to know some of their written resources by hearth.
 
It was only in the second half of last century that we discovered pedagogy and adopted completely different methods in our learning of the mysteries of this world.
 
In today’s terms and above anything else, indoctrination is an insult to the human mind. Newer religious and spiritual approaches are not making this mistake and this is a good thing. For instance in Yoga, there are some direction that are given to us by our teachers. Then, as we practice these directions, we get to get new insights and new understandings by ourselves.
 
But as I have said before, mankind is an ongoing project. Did you know that 3,4 Billion persons in this world don’t have toilets? That 2 billion people have to drink from polluted water sources?

WHO
 
- So we are not there but we will get there. It takes time for the ego to see its own flaws and decides to correct them.]]>  
1) You can build more non-verifiable beliefs on these original beliefs
 
2) The tendency of that person will be to keep this beliefs for a life time because that’s the nature of the Ego. (“If I know that I know then how can I be wrong” right?)
 
So modern education systems have moved away from this type of education technique. My physics teacher always made fun us by telling us that no matter what he told us we would simply follow him like a pack of sheep. When I was in college, I had a teacher who tested us with completely unrealistic claims on some issues (to which I usually was the only one in the class to object).
 
Yet, there is nothing wrong with indoctrination itself. It’s not that it is inherently evil. It’s just that it is outdated. Mankind did not begin its journey with the internet and chat GBT. Even a century ago, being able to buy newspapers and learn about the world was a great thing. 1000 years ago (when indoctrination was invented) books were rare and were a source of prestige for their owners. People knew that when they fed their cattle they would eat and that when they slept with their wives they would get babies. Nobles were mostly busy with their power struggles and priests would simply repeat their prayers every hour or so.
 
So indoctrination in these days was the main education tool. Even until the 1950’s doctors had to know some of their written resources by hearth.
 
It was only in the second half of last century that we discovered pedagogy and adopted completely different methods in our learning of the mysteries of this world.
 
In today’s terms and above anything else, indoctrination is an insult to the human mind. Newer religious and spiritual approaches are not making this mistake and this is a good thing. For instance in Yoga, there are some direction that are given to us by our teachers. Then, as we practice these directions, we get to get new insights and new understandings by ourselves.
 
But as I have said before, mankind is an ongoing project. Did you know that 3,4 Billion persons in this world don’t have toilets? That 2 billion people have to drink from polluted water sources?

WHO
 
- So we are not there but we will get there. It takes time for the ego to see its own flaws and decides to correct them.]]> <![CDATA[The fine tuning of god]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66596.html Thu, 15 Jan 2026 18:07:45 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66596.html
We happen to live in a universe that is over the top big, based on over the top complex physics. It seems reasonable that a less than perfect god should be able to create a less than perfect universe. Than why do we encounter this god and this universe?

It might have been otherwise and there are a lot of universe varieties that would suffice our mortal souls. A bit smaller perhaps, a bit more crowded with intelligent life perhaps, a bit less unforgiving with cataclysmic extinctions perhaps.

As I think of this there must be an infinite number of possible universes that could have done the job.  So this leaves us with the baffling question: who fine tuned god?

I'd love to hear your comments.]]>
We happen to live in a universe that is over the top big, based on over the top complex physics. It seems reasonable that a less than perfect god should be able to create a less than perfect universe. Than why do we encounter this god and this universe?

It might have been otherwise and there are a lot of universe varieties that would suffice our mortal souls. A bit smaller perhaps, a bit more crowded with intelligent life perhaps, a bit less unforgiving with cataclysmic extinctions perhaps.

As I think of this there must be an infinite number of possible universes that could have done the job.  So this leaves us with the baffling question: who fine tuned god?

I'd love to hear your comments.]]> <![CDATA[“Normative” ethical theories]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66528.html Sun, 07 Sep 2025 10:03:02 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66528.html My main focus in previous posts has been in metaethics but am turning from that for a while to look at ethical theories that may be compatible with or capable of being made compatible with an anti-realist commitments. I am not trying to get back into the metaethics here but am genuinely ignorant of the best books to get into different ethical systems that are compatible with my metaethics. 
I believe it has been touched on tangentially in my previous thread but would love to get into it with people who know this area and can help.

I don’t really mind whether a theory presumes mind independent normative values if that commitment can be ignored but the system itself still an interesting one to analyse

Thoughts on this?]]> My main focus in previous posts has been in metaethics but am turning from that for a while to look at ethical theories that may be compatible with or capable of being made compatible with an anti-realist commitments. I am not trying to get back into the metaethics here but am genuinely ignorant of the best books to get into different ethical systems that are compatible with my metaethics. 
I believe it has been touched on tangentially in my previous thread but would love to get into it with people who know this area and can help.

I don’t really mind whether a theory presumes mind independent normative values if that commitment can be ignored but the system itself still an interesting one to analyse

Thoughts on this?]]> <![CDATA[Philosophy Versus Science]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66498.html Fri, 18 Jul 2025 16:05:26 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66498.html
However I have heard arguments, especially from theists, claiming that science must still prove itself to philosophers.  They claim that science is necessarily tied to metaphysical naturalism and not just to methodological naturalism, so that it automatically excludes certain ideas and evidence.  These kinds of claims comprised a long back-and-forth in the Atheist Discussion forum.

So I was wondering what the people posting at Atheist Forums thought about this issue.]]>
However I have heard arguments, especially from theists, claiming that science must still prove itself to philosophers.  They claim that science is necessarily tied to metaphysical naturalism and not just to methodological naturalism, so that it automatically excludes certain ideas and evidence.  These kinds of claims comprised a long back-and-forth in the Atheist Discussion forum.

So I was wondering what the people posting at Atheist Forums thought about this issue.]]> <![CDATA[Consciousness]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66483.html Wed, 02 Jul 2025 01:07:24 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66483.html
P1) Everything is physical
P2) Consciousness certainly exists
C1) Therefore consciousness is physical
P3) There can be no radical emergence
P4) If there can be no radical emergence then consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness.
C2) Therefore, consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness
P5) If Consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness, and consciousness certainly exists and is physical, then physicality must fundamentally be experiential
C3) Therefore, physicality must fundamentally be experiential
P6) If physicality must fundamentally be experiential then panpsychism is true
C4) Therefore, Panpsychism is true]]>
P1) Everything is physical
P2) Consciousness certainly exists
C1) Therefore consciousness is physical
P3) There can be no radical emergence
P4) If there can be no radical emergence then consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness.
C2) Therefore, consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness
P5) If Consciousness can't emerge from total non-consciousness, and consciousness certainly exists and is physical, then physicality must fundamentally be experiential
C3) Therefore, physicality must fundamentally be experiential
P6) If physicality must fundamentally be experiential then panpsychism is true
C4) Therefore, Panpsychism is true]]> <![CDATA[resistance is futile, you will be assimilated]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66447.html Fri, 06 Jun 2025 01:54:17 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66447.html
Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule. 



even if you can't find anything wrong with the proofs... feel free to tell me what you think about them!


Smile]]>
Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule. 



even if you can't find anything wrong with the proofs... feel free to tell me what you think about them!


Smile]]> <![CDATA[Anthropomorphizing]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66446.html Tue, 03 Jun 2025 22:53:01 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66446.html
Quote:anthropomorphizing is attributing human characteristics to non-humans

do animals have consciousness? That is anthropomorphizing.

Many animals display the signatures of consciousness, but they do not possess human-level consciousness obviously.  So also obviously, consciousness is divisible and incremental rather than unitary.  Even in humans it comes and goes, depending on changes to brain chemistry and activation.

Please read this post.

According to Merriam-Webster, "anthropomorphizing" is "to attribute human form or personality to things not human."  That includes objects, animals, and forces of nature.

Energy is a force of nature, or actually several forces which emerged after the big bang.

Quote:and by the way I am not merely "attributing", I am proving!

To whom?  Please be sure to collect your Nobel Prize if this is true.   Smile

Quote:So, you agree that energy is eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

From what I have read, energy may or may not be eternal.  It may have been created in the big bang, with the positive energy of the various forces offset by the negative energy of gravity.  Some physicists think that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.  I understand some of the concepts in physics enough to leave cosmology to the professionals, who understand the math involved.

The energy-concept does possess other attributes often attributed to God.  However, I think it actually robs those attributes from the God-concept because, again obviously, no two things can possess all power.

Quote:I equated self-causal with self-deterministic and self-determinism with consciousness.

You still have to demonstrate that energy is conscious and willful.  Asserting it is not enough.  That's the key point.

Plus, if energy was created in the big bang, it was likely "caused" by a quantum fluctuation.  According to cosmologists, the quantum vacuum has properties which might account for the big bang.  In that sense, if that picture is correct, energy did not cause itself.]]>
Quote:anthropomorphizing is attributing human characteristics to non-humans

do animals have consciousness? That is anthropomorphizing.

Many animals display the signatures of consciousness, but they do not possess human-level consciousness obviously.  So also obviously, consciousness is divisible and incremental rather than unitary.  Even in humans it comes and goes, depending on changes to brain chemistry and activation.

Please read this post.

According to Merriam-Webster, "anthropomorphizing" is "to attribute human form or personality to things not human."  That includes objects, animals, and forces of nature.

Energy is a force of nature, or actually several forces which emerged after the big bang.

Quote:and by the way I am not merely "attributing", I am proving!

To whom?  Please be sure to collect your Nobel Prize if this is true.   Smile

Quote:So, you agree that energy is eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

From what I have read, energy may or may not be eternal.  It may have been created in the big bang, with the positive energy of the various forces offset by the negative energy of gravity.  Some physicists think that the universe is the ultimate free lunch.  I understand some of the concepts in physics enough to leave cosmology to the professionals, who understand the math involved.

The energy-concept does possess other attributes often attributed to God.  However, I think it actually robs those attributes from the God-concept because, again obviously, no two things can possess all power.

Quote:I equated self-causal with self-deterministic and self-determinism with consciousness.

You still have to demonstrate that energy is conscious and willful.  Asserting it is not enough.  That's the key point.

Plus, if energy was created in the big bang, it was likely "caused" by a quantum fluctuation.  According to cosmologists, the quantum vacuum has properties which might account for the big bang.  In that sense, if that picture is correct, energy did not cause itself.]]> <![CDATA[theory from pure observation]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66442.html Tue, 03 Jun 2025 20:54:58 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66442.html Moderator Notice
Removed large wall of Copy+Pasted text. ]]> Moderator Notice
Removed large wall of Copy+Pasted text. ]]> <![CDATA[Can you prove a negative, part 2]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66439.html Fri, 30 May 2025 10:32:28 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66439.html Paleophyte Wrote:Yes, you can prove a negative. Formally and properly prove. All you have to do is disprove the opposite and let the Law of the Excluded Middle do the rest. It's called Reduction to Absurdity:

The square root of a prime number can never be rational
You can prove a negative to a rational person, but can you prove a negative to Craig when he is using his "logic"? Although he states that you can prove the negative, he does not believe his own words. As a hypocrite, he is only making these claims here to win an argument against a person he loathes (in this case, an atheist).

For example, archaeology, history, and geology have proven that most events described in the Bible have never happened; yet, Craig and his ilk still do not behave as if the negative has been proven. Instead, they believe that, for example, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood really happened. In the case of Craig, he makes excuses, claiming that it's "mytho-history" or that it happened but in a different way that is spiritually true, which then ends up being "materially true". Thus, he believes that a historical Adam and a historical talking snake really existed. Let alone the convoluted logic he uses to "prove" that god (of the Bible) has not been disproven.

So, if there were two rational persons in the room and one says, "Scissors are in the drawer," and the other person opens the drawer and sees that it's empty, he would say that the scissors are not there and thus prove the negative, and the other person would agree that he made a false claim. But, in the case of Craig and his ilk, who want there to be scissors no matter what, they would still claim that scissors are there and make up excuses like: "The scissors are too small to be seen," or "The scissors are invisible."
And in the case of invisible scissors, you could check with your hand if they are there, and when they are not, Craig would further claim that "There are small insects that are holding the scissors and moving them away from your hand so that you can never catch them;" or that "The scissors are there but in many-worlds theory;" or that "The scissors are there but metaphorically or spiritually, and you have to have faith and a soul clean of all sins to find them. But no matter how much faith you have, it's never enough."

And indeed, while these are all highly improbable claims, they are not 100% impossible, so you can never really prove a negative to someone who is not rational, or as Craig would say: "In the cult of rationality."]]> Paleophyte Wrote:Yes, you can prove a negative. Formally and properly prove. All you have to do is disprove the opposite and let the Law of the Excluded Middle do the rest. It's called Reduction to Absurdity:

The square root of a prime number can never be rational
You can prove a negative to a rational person, but can you prove a negative to Craig when he is using his "logic"? Although he states that you can prove the negative, he does not believe his own words. As a hypocrite, he is only making these claims here to win an argument against a person he loathes (in this case, an atheist).

For example, archaeology, history, and geology have proven that most events described in the Bible have never happened; yet, Craig and his ilk still do not behave as if the negative has been proven. Instead, they believe that, for example, the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood really happened. In the case of Craig, he makes excuses, claiming that it's "mytho-history" or that it happened but in a different way that is spiritually true, which then ends up being "materially true". Thus, he believes that a historical Adam and a historical talking snake really existed. Let alone the convoluted logic he uses to "prove" that god (of the Bible) has not been disproven.

So, if there were two rational persons in the room and one says, "Scissors are in the drawer," and the other person opens the drawer and sees that it's empty, he would say that the scissors are not there and thus prove the negative, and the other person would agree that he made a false claim. But, in the case of Craig and his ilk, who want there to be scissors no matter what, they would still claim that scissors are there and make up excuses like: "The scissors are too small to be seen," or "The scissors are invisible."
And in the case of invisible scissors, you could check with your hand if they are there, and when they are not, Craig would further claim that "There are small insects that are holding the scissors and moving them away from your hand so that you can never catch them;" or that "The scissors are there but in many-worlds theory;" or that "The scissors are there but metaphorically or spiritually, and you have to have faith and a soul clean of all sins to find them. But no matter how much faith you have, it's never enough."

And indeed, while these are all highly improbable claims, they are not 100% impossible, so you can never really prove a negative to someone who is not rational, or as Craig would say: "In the cult of rationality."]]> <![CDATA[I will prove to you that Cod exists.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66396.html Tue, 08 Apr 2025 17:02:54 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66396.html

Boru]]>

Boru]]> <![CDATA[I will prove to you The Great Cosmic Penguin exists]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66395.html Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:50:33 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66395.html
[Image: ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcff2.earth.com%2Fuplo...=1200&q=75]]]>
[Image: ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcff2.earth.com%2Fuplo...=1200&q=75]]]> <![CDATA[I Will Prove To You That Zardoz Exists!]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66394.html Tue, 08 Apr 2025 01:18:18 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66394.html
]]>
]]> <![CDATA[I will prove to you the Borg exists]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66393.html Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:59:52 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66393.html


WE ARE THE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR UNIQUENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR COLLECTIVE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.]]>


WE ARE THE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. YOUR UNIQUENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR COLLECTIVE. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.]]> <![CDATA[I will prove to you Bog exists!]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66392.html Mon, 07 Apr 2025 23:49:34 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66392.html

Boru]]>

Boru]]> <![CDATA[I will prove to you the Cyril the Space Wombat exists.]]> https://atheistforums.org/thread-66390.html Mon, 07 Apr 2025 16:39:42 +0000 https://atheistforums.org/thread-66390.html
[Image: 9199d26afa4d442aa5b35f7d53e42575.webp]

You're welcome.]]>
[Image: 9199d26afa4d442aa5b35f7d53e42575.webp]

You're welcome.]]>