How to easily defeat any argument for God

[GrandizerII]

Our moral intuitions are product of evolutionary and/or social conditioning (depending on level of morality and what exactly we're talking about). Yet some people, due to defects in the brain, don't even have that concept of right or wrong.

And 3 month olds lack the capacity to recognize much of anything as right or wrong.

Yes, people don't normally reason out why X is right or wrong, but that doesn't [necessarily] mean that the intuition came about because of some divine entity or because of some platonic thingy out there whatever it may be. You jump the gun when you conclude that all this must be because of the Good.

Your appeal to evolution is incomplete.

Ok, let's examine your below reasoning then.

Our ability to recognize or perceive the sun outside, is a result of multitude of ways evolution has developed our perception related biological elements. But what we are seeing (the sun) is not an illusion of our biological make up, but something external to us.

True, but do you seriously want to put something concrete like the sun in the same category as something that is intuitively abstract such as morality? I need to see your reasoning as to why this analogy works in your favor because it seems to me to be a clear false analogy.

Plus, I am talking about intuition specifically here anyway (and cognition in general). Your ability to perceive the sun is linked to how we have evolved as a human species.

Evolution our biological elements, are the tools that aid in our perception of the good, just like in regards to the sun. Most people recognize a moral reality transcendent to themselves, don’t recognize good and evil as some internal biological state, but of reality itself.

You have social studies to support the claim I emphasized in bold? I would say most people just intuit things are right or wrong but without generally thinking too deep about these matters. When pressed to answer why, they may say because it hurts the other person or deprives the other person of this or that, or simply because it just isn't right.

The good is not some illusion of our biology, but an external reality itself.

Which you have yet to demonstrate is the case (by good, I'm assuming you mean the platonic Good).

You might want to argue otherwise, but it’s only a short path before it turns to solipsism.

How so?

[Acrobat]

Which you have yet to demonstrate is the case (by good, I'm assuming you mean the platonic Good).

When you point out things that are morally bad, or morally good? Are you describing to you your internal biological state? Like you might when you say pizza taste good?

I’m the man whose pointing out the sun exists outside my window, your the man staring out the window saying it doesn’t.

How could we show which of is right? Maybe by gathering more people who confirm it?

[GrandizerII]

Which you have yet to demonstrate is the case (by good, I'm assuming you mean the platonic Good).

When you point out things that are morally bad, or morally good? Are you describing to you your internal biological state? Like you might when you say pizza taste good?

I’m the man whose pointing out the sun exists outside my window, your the man staring out the window saying it doesn’t.

How could we show which of is right? Maybe by gathering more people who confirm it?

Facepalm. The sun is nothing like what we're debating here. How does one see "good" or "bad" in the same way they see "sun"?

When I say X is bad, I am generally speaking saying that there is something about this X that is harmful to others or depriving of rights or something else that can be clearly noted about it and that makes my brain think "bad".

[Acrobat]

Facepalm. The sun is nothing like what we're debating here. How does one see "good" or "bad" in the same way they see "sun"?

When I say X is bad, I am generally speaking saying that there is something about this X that is harmful to others or depriving of rights or something else that can be clearly noted about it and that makes my brain think "bad".

So when you say x is good, or x is bad you are stating an objective truth, and not a description of your subjective emotional state, like the pleasant taste of pizza?

[GrandizerII]

Facepalm. The sun is nothing like what we're debating here. How does one see "good" or "bad" in the same way they see "sun"?

When I say X is bad, I am generally speaking saying that there is something about this X that is harmful to others or depriving of rights or something else that can be clearly noted about it and that makes my brain think "bad".

So when you say x is good, or x is bad you are stating an objective truth, and not a description of  your subjective emotional state, like the pleasant taste of pizza?

That depends. It's not a black or white thing. Sometimes, it's just a reflection of my subjective emotional states, but other times, I can appeal to something about the act itself that reasonably makes it wrong. The Holocaust is wrong because it took the lives of a huge number of people for reasons that did not warrant it, it was a violation of human rights, etc. No reference to emotional states here (though my emotional state of disgust or anger may supplement how I view the Holocaust when I think about it).

[Acrobat]

The Holocaust is wrong because it took the lives of a huge number of people for reasons that did not warrant it, it was a violation of human rights, etc. No reference to emotional states here (though my emotional state of disgust or anger may supplement how I view the Holocaust when I think about it).

Exactly, when you’re recognize wrong here, your not saying something about your emotional state, but about a reality external to it.

Right and wrong/good and bad when it comes to morality, at least in some cases are objective truths, about a reality external to your emotional state.

You recognize/see that good and bad in regards to morality aren’t the same as when you speak of good and bad when it comes to your taste in food, or movies. They are not expressions of your biological state.

[Sal]

The same reason I don't believe in Bigfoot, is the same reason I don't believe in a deity.

It's the lack of evidence. Theists use special pleading for their god.

I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's not hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

How about an actual Bigfoot? Foot prints, photos and such can be faked. Same with evidence for a god.

I have to ask: Why is this seen as a distinction?

ID and Paley's design argument have the same flaws as the evidence for Bigfoot: They can easily be faked or taken on an unsteady a priori basis.

So what evidence would convince me of a god existing? First off: A god would know what it would take. Nothing short of a being introducing itself as a god and displaying powers only a god would possess would convince me, personally.

[Acrobat]

I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's not hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

How about an actual Bigfoot? Foot prints, photos and such can be faked. Same with evidence for a god.

I have to ask: Why is this seen as a distinction?

ID and Paley's design argument have the same flaws as the evidence for Bigfoot: They can easily be faked or taken on an unsteady a priori basis.

So what evidence would convince me of a god existing? First off: A god would know what it would take. Nothing short of a being introducing itself as a god and displaying powers only a god would possess would convince me, personally.

Okay so given that.

Even if it was confirmed that Jesus did in fact came back from death, and all the claims of ID proponents were true, that our reality was designed/created, this wouldn’t be a satisfactory basis for you to believe god exists?

[Sal]

How about an actual Bigfoot? Foot prints, photos and such can be faked. Same with evidence for a god.

I have to ask: Why is this seen as a distinction?

ID and Paley's design argument have the same flaws as the evidence for Bigfoot: They can easily be faked or taken on an unsteady a priori basis.

So what evidence would convince me of a god existing? First off: A god would know what it would take. Nothing short of a being introducing itself as a god and displaying powers only a god would possess would convince me, personally.

Okay so given that.

Even if it was confirmed that Jesus did in fact came back from death, and all the claims of ID proponents were true, that our reality was designed/created, this wouldn’t be a satisfactory basis for you to believe god exists?

No, it wouldn't for me personally.

But that's just entertaining what-ifs.

[Acrobat]

Okay so given that.

Even if it was confirmed that Jesus did in fact came back from death, and all the claims of ID proponents were true, that our reality was designed/created, this wouldn’t be a satisfactory basis for you to believe god exists?

No, it wouldn't for me personally.

But that's just entertaining what-ifs.

Okay so if it was proven to you that these things were true, you would believe something, some force or power raised Jesus from the dead, some thing, some force/power created the world, you just wouldn’t call it God. Perhaps call it an unknown force/power/intelligence etc..