ShadowWhoWalks

More like 0.0001%. Refugees are a non-issue in the US, and not only because of the ocean barriers. They get in through the UN's Refugee Resettlement Program; first applying to the UNHCR (United Nation High Commision for Refugees) and undergo rigorous screening, which includes multiple interviews, background checks, reference checks, and biological screening. A military combatant is screened out, while those deemed to be most vulnerable are selected for resettlement at a country; they do NOT select which country they are referred to. In the US they get even more screening; if they look suspecious they go back. Only 2% of Syrian refugees accepted in the US are men of combat age. It would be the dumbest plan I've heard of for a terrorist to carry out an attack through this program. They would spend a couple of years sitting in some camp with a high probability of not being selected, plus the rigorous screening, and if they get selected they have no knowledge of where they would be going (would be a bummer for them if they went into a country they have no grudge against, hehe). Obama promised to take 10000 refugee, while Canda which has about 1/10th of the US population resettled 25000 refugees; around 2000 only have been resettled in the US so far. The radical Muslim narrative is getting ridiculous. An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology or belief system, but rather someone who claims to follow a particular one while holding views which go outside its bounds (ex. someone professing belief in Communism while advocating private property and free market, a Libertarian who rejects the requirement of a state to protect individualism can be called an extremist). If the Islamic orthodoxy and most Muslims don't support terrorism, then so be it; the Islamic terrorists are extremists (which is made more credible by the terrorists being less engaged in their community, low theologically educated, and citing revenge as justification). Staying true to what they perceive as a comprehensive way of life doesn't make them extremists. If anything, a minority who would like to misrepresent Islamic principle, acting like there is no such thing as an Islamic tradition, scholarship, and jurists all for lobotomizing Islam into compatibility with secularism and liberalism would be extremists. Imagine if a Muslim country's media selectively reports the crimes of secular liberalists and states their ideology along their crime when it is not relevant, while calling 'political' secular liberals extremists, and a danger to society because their philosophers justify killing civilians and that their ideology has spread with bullets and bayonets; all while inviting 'reforming non-political' secular liberal minority to speak for the rest of secular liberalists and Unitarian Christians who reject Jesus' divinity to speak against and on the behalf of Tritarians. All in all, don't get cosy with 'rights' in nationalism; as long as it is no longer convenient, it is gone.

For one, they both have funny hair. They are both authoritarian. They appeal to illusion of nationalism, and to victim hood tribalism (which I am convinced to be demagoguery). There are parallel in some of their policies. However, multiple people can fulfil some vague similarities, and that doesn't make them Hitler. Historical analogies are dangerous; a justification for the Iraq war was "Saddam is like Hitler", and a justification for ignoring the massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda was "it is not like the Holocaust". Historical analogies need to help us understand the present, not attempt to push our own conclusion; we need to realize analogies fail (otherwise they would be called 'identities') and two different phenomena are different. Nonetheless, it is safe to assume that Trump was influenced to some extent by Hitler since he read the sequel to Mein Kampf and kept it near his bed for some time.

If you believe it might create unnecessary conflict, gently reject them, like saying that you have things to see to. If you believe things will go smoothly, then sell it straight I guess.

Anything specific? Internal contradiction within text? Internal contradiction between text and church teaching (which is largely irrelevant to the teaching of bible and Jesus)? Logical problems within church teaching? The academia consensus that the bible is unauthentic?

While I am sure that there are half-wits who are going to vote for Trump because "he is a honest and tough guy", the main appeal behind Trump and Sanders is that they are anti-establishment and corporation. The cycle so far has been the leaders not being obliged to consult the people in running the affair of the country, nor fulfill their promises. They derive laws from what is convenient, and may and do take away people's rights using that justification (ex. 'its for security', 'the majority wants it against the minority'). No question that we can't rely to have competent or just candidates, and they can get elected again simply by lying to the people and persuading them that they are the lesser of two evil. Being anti-that-bullshit sends the message of not being bullied, controlled, or bossed around by corporations, lobby groups, and rich businessmen (Sanders by relying on small individual donations, and Trump by loaning half his campaign). It is unlikely for that BS to change much due to Trump or Sanders, but it is a change from normalcy none the less. Definitely a misfire by J. Oliver. First of all, that is out of topic. Second of all, her religion is irrelevant. Let me literate your narrative: Muslim involved in violent crime: "Islam allows them to do it!", "Islam commands them to do it!" Non-Muslim involved in violent crime: "There's bad people in every community", "Natural reaction to anger", "He is insane." It is stupid. Fyi,, the woman was drugged at the time of arrest, and obviously crazed; she stated that the reason was due to her husband's infidelity =a psycho.

Daesh comes from a socio-political situation (Iraq in the last 30 years), instability, political revolutions, chaos, economic sanctions, bombing, invasions. They claim to be fighting on behalf of the oppressed, fighting an invading army to protect innocent people from third parties, along with romantic notions of reestablishing the caliphate all naively taken at face value. Diluting the sentiment by slowing down on the bombing, invading, droning, imprisoning without charges, interfering in governments, arming and propping up oppressive tyrants, and treating countries like a private plaything for money and profit should be a good step. But statistically speaking and based on the threat-level, too much time and money have been wasted on this, and alienating the anti-ISIS Islamic academic and religious authority while acknowledging and contributing to Daesh's narrative doesn't help. How'd Daesh love a "No-Muslims Allowed" sign at the borders. Now what did Trump say? Total and complete shutdown, when asked if this will include Muslim Americans abroad his spokesperson said "Mr. Trump says everyone". Later on he said in an interview that it isn't complete and total and that there will be exceptions, which shows that he is baiting the media and pandering; he is a skilled entertainer, and skilled entertainers (and demagogues) know their audience, and people are more familiar with entertainers than politicians. The sentiment that Muslims are uniquely dangerous and antithetical to American values is actually supported by multiple GOP candidates (Let's ban refugees! Oh, but I wanna add a bill that makes an exception for "proven Christians"). Compare Edward R. Murrow with the cowardly neutral and faux analyticism of most US media: Trump decries political correctness, yet at the he is embracing and defining his tribe with victimhood identity politics and attempts to convince us that this plus emotions provides immunity against criticism, rather than defending an ideology and supporting it with logical argumentation. He supports a blind postmodern metanarative filled with obscurity, no different than the one about rape-culture or accusing white cops of crimes they didn't commit. Trump knows he can make all sort of erroneous fear-mongering statements knowing full-well that his supporters will rush to his defense regardless of the inaccuracies of his assertions if it fits their narrative. Paranoid politics to amass more power works (All the people calling Obama a dictator and switching to Trump is amusing). He invokes atavistic notions of a pre-multicultural America that is relatively ethnically pure; but when it comes to waiving conspiracies he is no different from liberals claiming that the National Rifle Association is responsible for the high crime rates; since the liberals are jumping at conspiracy theories it is OK to indulge in it too, huh. He is a 'reality' TV star first; he baits media attention with vaguely inflammatory statements so he can confirm it and take more attention time from his rivals, while attempting as a populist to pander to fear and previously unrepresented demography (the sort that believe Obama is not a US citizen). There is a mountin-worth of data for anyone willing to understand why attacks occur. His rhetoric has nothing to do with preventing terrorism or remedy the issues that contribute to terrorism. I tried to see it as the media twisting his words to create a controversial headline, but there is no way around it: Trump is pro collective punishment.

So I should irrationally (If it is not justified by reason it is justified by emotion) believe this claim is false with no logic or reason until you back it up with logic and/or evidence? Why not be an agnostic or deist? I already defended God being axiomatic, but clarify the apparently self-refuting quoted statement above and I'll provide direct arguments.

Which is a positive claim; I would ask you to elaborate but I can deduce what you meant below. The 'default position' is shaped by the community (ex. one that believes in presumption of innocent vs one that believes in presumption of guilt). It is standard that every creation has a cause, along with children being hardwired to be theists, plus being the position being cross cultural and allowing a coherent worldview of reality compatible with the objectivity of logic, existence of morality, and freewill. You claim there is no evidence. To make your claim a more structured as an argument: "If (not) [Q], then I am convinced (unconvinced) about the existence of a deity". "If (no) [P], then the theists have (have not) proven their case". Q and P must be specified and be valid, if they are ambiguous then you haven't thought your position through. So you are confirming what I said; you are actively rejecting theists arguments and theories. Yet, Atheists seem too eager to avoid the intellectual obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for their rejection (going as far as to deny the burden of rebuttal, which devolves into "You argument is wrong because I don't like the conclusion"). You can't touch it (thus Shirgall is obligated to reject it to maintain consistency with his statement), only observe the effect of the physical law; point made. Just like we can't experience a bat's ultrasonic vision yet conclude it, we can conclude the existence of God by observing the effects (such as the universe). if you add the phrase, "therefore there is no God” to the end of your assertion, it shows the logic, or lack thereof, for rejecting the existence of a proposed first cause. Fallacy of silence + fallacy fallacy. If that is the reason for your rejection then it is irrational. Heard of a guy who believes Obama is a democrat because the sky is blue. Yet, the "truth" is mere subjective computation of a meat machine in Atheism, in which 'reason' is merely a by product of irrational processes or biological impulses. Holding it as transcendent is contradicting your belief. Which brings us to the questions of: Is there a source for this incorrigible truth? And if so what is its source? I'd like you to hear your case then. Reading in Atheist philosophy should suffice to support my claim, but to argue for God being axiomatic: LoL: The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and the LNC is sufficient to prove their objectivity; if their source is human minds that contradict each other then it is not objective. Atheism cannot account for it, thus consistent Atheism would reject the existence of truth and self-refute itself. To make an other argument: • 1- If the laws of logic exists, they are universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, intentional truths. • 2- Intentional entities are best explained by mental products. • 3- Therefore, if the laws of logic exists, then they are best explained by universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, and an eternal mind (God's mind). • 4- The laws of logic exists. • C: Therefore, they are best explained by the product of God's mind which is universal, infallible, immutable, omnipresent, eternal, and source of intentionality. M: Morality has to be objective as well since a 'subjective morality' cannot be stated coherently and self-refutes itself (it is a universal value to reject universal values) My moral opinion is that some moral statements are more valid than others, and that some principles of morality are absolute and do not depend on human opinion; do you approve of my position? If you do and it is true for the holder, then by definition it is true for everyone and moral relativism is false. If you deny that the view is true, then the belief in relative morality is contradicted due to belief in objective moral statements. The argument is simple: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist, however objective moral values and duties exist, therefore God exists. FW: Materialism demands that every action is a deterministic chain of causality leading back to the Big Bang; freewill would be an impossible contingent uncaused causer. However, this would lead to self-refutation as it claims universal delusion and denial of the agency that is indvidually observed within each of us, while it is claimed that ‘consciousness’ - whatever that is - is under the impression that the thoughts are its own, and that it evaluates, thinks, judges, concludes, etc. when it is only receiving results of something that has already happened and has no control over. Irrelevant to basic theism. Also, the intellectual value and philosophical illiteracy among New Atheists is nothing to brag about. Some people claim to reject the existence of other minds, the existence of a world outside the mind, and the objectivity of logic; what is their penalty? Genetic fallacy using story telling about the origin of the phenomenon of religion. I am simply setting the concept straight. If you don't believe that God is axiomatic then you believe that God is impossible (basic ontology). So what reason do you believe that God is impossible? I can provide more reasons, but I believe the LoL+M+FW arguments are sufficient. Atheism simply obliterates logic along with the most basic of axioms and requires believing in the impossible; it is incoherent. Are you suggesting that there have been notable effort by Atheists to posit structured arguments for their positions?

So are you claiming that Atheists don't understand theism or are bewildered by it? Why are you asserting ignorance of something of which you are obviously not ignorant of? Your position is transparently incoherent: Claim #1: There is no Atheist position; it is a void. Claim #2: Actually, the Atheist position is that theist arguments are a) false, b) can't be falsified or proven false. Claim #3: Claim #2 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended. Claim #4: Claim #3 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended. Claim #5: Claim #4 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended. ... ad inf. Come on man, get real. Then we have a fallacy about 'one less god!'. If you eliminate... Hilary Clinton... from being the previous president, you are not eliminating the existence of a president. If you reject an especially far-fetched common descent scenario, that doesn't mean you reject common descent. Now, a lot of people believe in Mount Everest existing in the Himalayas, but not in any mount Everest existing outside the Himalayas! For some inexplicit reason, if you don't believe in some things under a certain label, then it is more rational to disbelieve all things that are also under that label. Ergo, you should feel persuaded to disbelieve in all Mount Everest, including the one existing in the Himalayas. Therefore, everyone is an "a-mount-everest-ist" even if they believe in a mountain called Everest, and they need to be one -even thought they are an "a-mount-everest-ist" already-, some just go one more mount Everest further. It is a good idea to make use of valid logical deduction instead of bumper sticker quotes and one-liners for reasoning. By your logic, theists are merely campaigning against the idea that there are no gods? By erecting monuments, demanding to address opposition, raising money, forming collage clubs, organizing events, forming churches, children camps, celebrate their worldview, have conventions, proselytizing in the internet and through posters, writing books? Theists are simply pushing back against the notion of no gods. Can you bring me a comprehensive (and thus accurate and acknowledges the existence of non-theistic religions) definition of religion that excludes Atheism from being a religion? To quote Leon Wieseltier's summary of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, by Alex Rosenberg: "Is there a God? No. What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is. What is the purpose of the universe? There is none. What is the meaning of life? Ditto. Why am I here? Just dumb luck. Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding? Is there free will? Not a chance! What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes. What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don't look for it; it will find you when you need it. Does history have any meaning or purpose? It's full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing." That sounds more of a religion than Buddhism to me, with an apparent general consensus among those who call themselves Atheists. Dude... you want to make not believe in the laws of logic or gravity?! Why? You made a lot of extraordinary claims. You are making claims about theist theories and arguments. You have heard of them; why did you reject them? You not wanting to share your personal views about God and defend them is irrelevant. If you don't hold it as axiomatic that God - who is posited as a necessarily-existent being - exists, then do you hold it that He is possible to exist or impossible to exist? Do you believe that logic, morality, and freewill can exist without God? If so then prove their compatibility with Atheism (and revolutionize philosophy). If not, then you have conceded your argument by denying those axioms.

False analogy abound as we are talking about the First Cause, Uncaused Cause, Pure Actuality, etc., whose existence can be known by reason alone; any philosophical argument for the good G-O-D is impossible to apply for a contingent being. Something like spaghetti requires cultural transfer of information, when children tend to form the concept of God without adult intervention (Atheism takes effort). Atheists don't proselytize their beliefs? If Atheists believe that their position is based on logic and/or evidence, and is therefore rational, then they should be compelled to provide the logic or evidence which supports their belief, else they are not what they claim to be. Do you have any rational reason to reject God/creating-entity theories? A yes or no would do. If so, then provide the logic and/or material empirical evidence. Do I understand that you are skeptical of the laws of logic or the First Principles of rational thought, along with the existence of other minds and mathematics? Can you empirically derive and support your statement regarding the nature of skepticism?

S-, I think I found a correlation between the number of pirates and warming trends in the last century. The whole thing isn't science (as commonly meant: empirical science); it is pure inference. One that is far away from parsimony regarding the stack of loose assumptions and inferences it makes, which devolves into storytelling to fit a narrative.

Aha, lack of belief system... except the active rejection of theist theories? Ignorance or unawareness is much different than what one would mean by atheism which amounts to semantic hoops. What is the term for not believing that there are no deities? Denying the theist of the existence of a greater reality than the material one is a worldview bruh (ex. "it is irrational to believe God exists", "God doesn't exist").

While I am all for funny analogies, it isn't a logical objection. 1- It presupposes Atheism. 2- The glass is multi-chambered and you are forcing the research into a certain compartment (materialism), while irrationally rejecting the existence of any other chamber or alcove because you have not experienced them. Yet, the axioms upon which empiricism depends on are not themselves either material or provable by empiricism. 3- It would be a ridicule to theologians based on the presumption of Athiesm, so if it is an argument it would be ad hominem abusive along with question begging. Just saying, but theism is more intuitive which is reverse reflected in the analogy.

Who knew, leading the GOP polls requires a celebrity to sell himself as unique; ex. brash statements, and mixing the occasional idiocy (unfortunately not unique in contemporary candidates) with a shock factor. All while cashing in on the anti-PC frustration, seems there was a pretty good market in fear mongering as well. Weird how different political climates produces terms such as house of calm, house of truce, house of safety, and house of invitation. While I am all for getting rid of idiotic immigration policies, your position is exactly playing into ISIS' hands.

I would like to inquire about who judges whether something is just or not. Is it physical laws? Do we make arbitrary claims, or use our intuition to recognize an absolute standard which already exists?

I didn't see the point behind the concept of self-ownership, hence I considered it along with my statement off-topic. My point is that there is no such thing as absolute self-ownership; we are limited in ability and knowledge while being dependant on exterior things; including other people. I never claimed that moral authority is internal. I claimed that if moral authority is internal, then it is subjective. But it would seem you agree that morality is incoherent if it is subjective? Are parents having an unchosen obligation to their children unethical? Are people with various violent tendiencies having an unchosen obligation to not murder children unethical? What if someone wants to act unconsistently? No. You cannot derive an ought from an is. Period. Your if is a factual is statement like any other, and cannot rationally derive an ought. "If it's the case that action X IS in your self-interest/desire-for-consistency, then you OUGHT to take action X." If that is the basis of your moral system, then we can conclude that it is fallicious. Your statement is confusing; refer to the math analogy above. Why are you maintaining consistency as a universal value, and yet claiming that there is no universal value or an ought to act consistently? If someone consistently steals bikes, stashes them in his apartment, and then sells them to a shoddy dealer, why is he wrong? “Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.” ― G.K. Chesterton The notion behind property is that Person A declares something to be property, and then threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Even if we grant the truth value of your statement for the sake of argument, it is still remains an is/ought fallacy; describing what theft is doesn't rationally tell us anything regarding what should happen regarding theft or whether theft should happen. If it is not absolute that leaves us with human subjectivity. The basis behind what is moral in your system is consistency regardless of the behavior that which is consistent. Based on the logic provided, If murder and charity are done consistently, then there is no difference as consistency exists in both. You seem to switch the goal post by adding "not a behavior that is binding upon others"; is what is moral in your system (which would be subjective and incoherent if it is not justified) what is consistent while being binding upon others instead? Wouldn't you bind others to get false information when lying? By definition, objective morality is not affected by human opinion (ex. if the 3rd Reich had a successful propaganda campaign on children), thus it is binding upon them.

Preference is subjective; I have already provided a paradox that demonstrates the impossability to state 'subjective' morality in a coherent non-self-refuting way that amounted to "It is a universal value to reject universal values". I concede the existence of that pattern in cerain populations, but I also affirm that it is irrelevant as it is subject to change via. hypothesis of common descent or social conditioning, along with rejecting its unjustified speciaism. Or would you imply that the cause of libertarianism is immoral because it violates the appeal to popularity? Referencing to what behavior is beneficial or not is a category error; you might as well say that math is the source of morality. Sure, you can use math to help you not take other people's money unduly, but you'll never get an equation that tells you that stealing or cheating is wrong; even if such a thing exists for the sake of argument there is no reason to follow the equation nor an obligation to obey it. Now, when you talk of determining moral values based on the benefits and harm of the behavior you seem to be similarly confused. A pattern is a method that aids us identify better way to help humans flourish, but it in no way tell us why we ought to help humans flourish, or why it is wrong to murder. It tells us what it is, not what it ought to be. You have not established why ant flourishing is inferior to human flourishing, inflicting harm on an other person is wrong, or how nature at work (ex. animal rape) is wrong when applied to humans.

I assume you are talking about common descent, in that case it is a historical hypothesis, not a theory. To be precise, we are talking about the historical hypothesis that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps. There is no biology being done which requires evolution as a premise in its hypothesis, and without which premise the science could not proceed. To claim that it is fundamental and imply that it is necessary to biological science is a genetic fallacy. Biologists by and large try to understand existing systems and structures; what they’re made of, how they’re constructed, and how they function; how they evolved or history of the fossil record 200000 years ago, or extrapolatory hypotheses about entities which do not exist in the current time frame is beside the point. Stem Cell biology is booming due to observation, hypothesis, and experimentation, not by attachment to evolution. As you are trying to make him believe this fundamental 'truth', you want to shame him into thinking that he is anti-science and therefore irrational if he doesn't accept evolution, you are trying to ignore the existence of flaws that are required in order to fill out the entire worldview, including the inability to answer the question of what life actually is, what the source of first life was, why life perpetuates itself despite being subject to entropy, what is the source of mind, rationality, agency, and self awareness, along with many other questions. It is patently false that it is not fundamental at all when it can't answer the fundamental issues.

Did that self-ownership decide DNA, nationality, school, parents, teachers, talents, etc. ? To not get off-topic, I never denied the ability to think, in fact it is confirmed in the following lines: The definition of morality is a system of thought of how intelligent beings should act; you simply claim that they should act consistently. Is your system of morality based on an absolute transcendent basis or is it supported by your human subjectivity? Not to mention that it is absurd. Someone who consistently murders children is as moral as someone who consistently gives charity. Someone who always lies is more moral than someone who consistently tells the truth.

That sounds like switching the goal post since you assumed that the first cause is created by asking who created the Creator. There are much better reasons to believe that the universe is contingent and thus created rather than necessary: When we reflect on everything we experience, we are intuitively aware of the possibility that those things could've been different; everything in our experience is dependent upon something else for its existence; we have excellent reasons both philosophical and empirical for thinking that the universe had a beginning and therefore a cause. Which means that the assumption that the universe is contingent can be confidently taken; now why according to you shouldn't we think the universe is contingent? The new speculative field of “emergence” is (currently) unsupported by any real empirical replicable data, to my knowledge. Further, it is motivated by the need to preserve philosophical materiality in the face of existing physical laws against things that require the effect to be greater and more complex than the cause. Can you provide that evidence please? Reading on the scientific method and the philosophy of science, we will understand that subjective conscious experiences are outside of the scope of the scientific enterprise, as science is restricted to only that which can be observed, while subjective conscious states cannot. Thus your statement of emergence appears to be an unjustified faith statement and is in no way an empirical factoid. Furthermore the ability to think new and creative thoughts seems enough to falsify this notion; the ability to place oneself into a subjective, creative zone at will. The denial of the primacy of the conscious intellect is a self-refuting non-coherence: if the conscious intellect is not in charge, or is a delusion / illusion, then human 'thoughts' clearly have no meaning, having not been derived by the conscious human, but by an aggregate of mass / energy which is not under the control of the deluded or non-existant conscious intellect . So a thought to any effect regarding the matter is neither consciously nor intellectually derived, and therefore is not the property of the conscious intellect. These are consequences of the idea that the mind is purely a material artifact of the material brain, and the consequences are irrational. Oh, and don't bother bringing up bloodflow; that is bad philosophy and science. There is no knowledge that the bloodflow indicates a decision at all; that is a Jump To Conclusion. The bloodflow might be preparatory for initial conditions which need to be satisfied in order to make the decision consciously; it might include the need for memory access to comparable situations so that a rational comparison can be made; it might include the differentiation process, and other processes required of rational decision making, before the decision is actually made; it might merely be a nutritional preparation for a process which is upcoming. There is no direct measurement of either the decision, or the actual receipt of information by the conscious mind, and the unjustified conclusion can be accepted only by declaring our every experience to be a delusion. Your claim would not only be baseless as demonstrated above, it would be rationally untenable: If determinism is valid, then humans are uncaused causer, because human agency is rationally undeniable without self-refutation, and it defies predetermined control (hence some Atheist philosophers such as Bertrand Russel and David Hume went with an unidentified substance for the philosophy of mind). I agree that God is a singular deity, but your misconception was that basic theism requires that God is the only unembodied mind in existence, when it is conceivable for God to create other unembodied minds. This is not claimed. The statement I addressed specifically is this: Which is contrary to your current premise. My statement was to demonstrate that evidence is possible and is capable of being valid, not to present it, but I see that you have no objection to my statement. To keep it simple: The objectivity of logic, existence of morality, and existence of freewill are not compatible with Atheism in a non-illusionary form. The negation of any of the three will lead to self-refutation. There. The existence of God is a basic belief needed to construct a coherent worldview (Along with being intuitive and axiomatic, as it is cross-cultural and doesn't require transfer of information, and children tend to become theists without adult intervention). I ain't timid, but I envy you along with your usual discourse environment if that is considered a 'lot of bluster'. My statement assumed you are aware of basic evidence of the position you criticize, which is at the very most unintentional question begging. So you don't know despite previously claiming that you know (redherring from you btw, specifically Tu Quoque; "you too!"). Ok. I thought I provided direct quotes; please point what I mischaracterized and explain your point, I apologize for any strawman if I had made any. The level of my intelligence is irrelevant to the argument. Are the laws of physics invisible, immaterial, immutable, infallible, omnipresent, omnipotent, transcendent, and eternal? Why do you accept that yet find a transcendent first cause inconsistent and irrational? The laws of physics came with the universe, hence they are contingent; they could be fundamentally different, ergo an other reason they are contingent. You claim that the material first cause is dependent upon the laws of physics, but that would negate it being a first cause as it needs to be compelled by something else first to cause second, namely the laws of physics (which didn't exist). You seem to go into the territory of woo woo, and ignoring deductive and empirical conclusions that universes need a cause. As Einstein said, the man of science is a poor philosopher, and Krauss is strengthening that stereotype when he attempts to do philosophy. 'Debating' implies disagreement. Krauss also tells us that nothing is a “physical quantity” which can be studied through “empirical” means. All of which entails that the absence of something is a physical quantity which can be studied through empirical means. Please try to wrap your mind around that. Lets say your desktop has length, width, depth, mass, etc. and can be seen and touched. And it turns out that the absence of your desktop has length, width, depth, mass, etc. and can be seen and touched. Does the absence of a desktop look different from the absence of a cat? Do they weigh the same? And how many absences can you fit in one room? What part of nothing don't you understand? What kind of system is nothing? If it is a state, what exactly is it that is in that state? What are the components of nothing and what does shuffling around those components involve? How does it differ from not shuffling anything around at all, or there being nothing in a state at all, or there being nothing with any components at all? What does it mean to turn nothing into something? How does it work with the law of entropy, and what does the law govern when there is nothing around to govern? The objection was raised to Lawrence Krauss's fallacy of equivocation, and his response was to maintain it and change the subject (talking about “space,” “properties,” an “approximation of nothing,” “energy,” “infinite number of universes,” etc., which of course are not nothing but something) while continuing to insinuate that he is somehow addressing the original question (how something could come from nothing, not something). All as if repeating the fallacy changes its fallacious nature.

"subjective morality" is simply put self-refuting. All I have to is put this statement in the air: "My moral opinion is that some moral statements are more valid than others, and that some principles of morality are absolute and do not depend on human opinion; do you approve of my position?" If you do and it is true for the holder, then by definition it is true for everyone and moral relativism is false. If you deny that the view is true, then the belief in relative morality is contradicted due to belief in objective moral statements. Subjective morality cannot be stated in a consistent and non-self-contradictory way, thus, unless unless we deny the rules of logic altogether, it inevitably collapses in paradox and must be discarded. Since this is about atheism, this would be problematic since atheism seems incompatible with a transcendent and objective basis for morality. Some might refer to moral realism, but still, If someone rejects all external sources of moral authority, then moral authority is internal to the person. If moral authority is internal to the person, then it is subjective within each person, hence moral authority is not objective, and morals derived from such are not objective and relieved from any objective values. Furthermore, if there is no such thing as moral authority, then there are no authorized morals. Atheism doesn't inherently come with a moral standard attached to it, so the source of the morality must be one of the following: An arbitrary moral standard which is created (and changeable on a whim) personally to match personal behaviour. Borrowing an existing objectivist moral standard, like of the Abrahamic religions. A legal or judicial standard, confused it with a moral standard applicable everywhere and at all times. A tautology everyone is moral by definition. No standard is conformed to. Those are the options I can think of. None of them provides a worldview with objective morality.

Not really. Per laws of causality, a creation requires a creator, a creator creates. What you are assuming is that the creator is also created and contingent, which is false in basic theism, hence your question would be incoherent. That is not as much of a claim than it is a conclusion, if the consciousness existing w/o M/E is coherent and the argument follows soundly, then there is no problem. An objection I would raise is whether consciousness is meaningful with only M/E; that would imply universal delusion such as that your thoughts are not your own, that you are not thinking, evaluating, judging, or deciding; that your 'consciousness' whatever that is perceives of what has already happened and has no control while being deluded into having the perception it does. That would appear to be self-refuting. Claiming that CEw/oME is not consistent with the real world sounds like a baseless claim which assumes philosophical materialism, which is unable to support its claims within its own criteria and is thus internally incoherent and irrational (Along with denying the validity of the First Principles of logic). One CEw/oME is not claimed, what is claimed is that there is one transcendent first cause, which should be obvious. What the deity is or its attributes would be irrelevant to its existence. Lets go with this analogy: We cannot have an adequate mental or visual picture of the way which bats 'see' using ultrasonic waves. But we know the concept to be existent and true due to solid evidence based on your understanding of soundwaves, bat biology, logical analysis and experimentation, and not because of some irrational ideas, even though we cannot have personal experiential knowledge of bat vision. In other words, in order to comprehend, one does not have to actually have experience of visual perception, therefore we can indeed say that we do comprehend that bat vision is based on ultrasound. hence, we can know the existence and comprehend the nature of a cause through the evidence of the effects. Now what about the concept of a singular, all-knowing entity which has created the universe? It is impossible to have any mental or visual picture of such an entity, for evidence tells us that this entity must be unlike anything in the universe because this entity must be independent of all matter, energy and motion and therefore also of time. The evidence for the existence of this single intelligence lies in the design of nature itself, which we can freely examine; hence, such an ideology must, logically speaking, be rational. By making an objection based on justice, you imply that there is an objective way the universe ought to be, but is there such a thing rather than a way the universe is in atheism? Do you object to the level of suffering or the existence of suffering (and thus purpose, desire, courage, improvement, truth/falsehood, etc.)? Would the deity only be worthy of worship if all commands are fulfilled? How do you know? Time as one of the four dimensions of the physical world (which gets influenced by matter/energy and space like a flexible square fabric) empirically did not exist before Planck's time, furthermore as a finite property it cannot be eternal. Therefore it began to exist. By asserting that time is necessary for causation, are you implying that nothing can create something and that the law of causality is false? That is internal incoherence. I believe the term "maximal" is more accurate than "infinite". Hence the properties would be qualitative rather than quantitative, such as: "The ability to actualize every possible affair", in which getting a litter stronger is impossible, or "Knowledge of everything", in which further knowledge is impossible. A chain of causality starts at an uncaused causer, else it would need a prior cause and a prior cause, etc. and wouldn't have begun. How is a first cause that is not dependant on anything external incoherent? The cause of time would transcend time. The universe is contingent and its event is dependant on prior causes, therefore logically it cannot qualify as a first cause (however, if the first cause possess will, it would not be coerced and thus would not be dependant on external causes and would be coherent); this is also empirically falsified since an eternal universe would be in a state of heat death thus would have had a beginning, this also applies to a multiverse. I can't believe you recommended a pseudophilosopher such as Laurence Krauss (at least I heard he stopped calling philosophy stupid and retarded). 'Nothing' is merely misuse of semantics; by nothing energy fluctuation in vacuum is meant, but that is something, not not-a-thing.