If you believe morality, consciousness, or meaning can exist without God, you are reaching

1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)
2. We know inductively that the inanimate (nonconscious) is not moral. (Observation)
3. In some possible world, there is only the nonconscious. (Premise)
4. In some possible world, there is no morality. (From 2 and 3)
5. Morality is contingent. (From 4)
6. Morality is not contingent on the nonconscious. (From 2)
7. Morality is contingent on the conscious. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8. Consequence is objective. (Premise)
9. Consequence can be significant. (Observation)
10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
11. Objective meaning implies objective purpose. (Premise)
12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
13. Purpose is good or evil. (Premise)
14. Good and evil are objective. (From 11 and 13)
15. Good and evil are only moral concepts. (Premise)
16. Good and evil are contingent on morality. (From 15)
17. Morality is objective. (From 14 and 16)
18. Consciousness is objective. (From 15, 16, and 17)
19. Knowledge is objective. (From 18 and 23)
20. Objective morality is contingent on objective consequence and objective consciousness. (Premise)
21. Objective consequence and objective consciousness imply objective agency. (Premise)
22. Agency is objective. (From 21)
23. Absent things don't exist. (Premise)
24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)

This may seem a bit convoluted, but this is what happens when one has to explain axiomatic concepts to insistent idiots.
If you reject this, it's because you didn't try to accept it, you think with your emotions, or you assume your conclusions.
>hurr sky daddy
This """contention""" is analogous to going up to a car enthusiast and snorting "hurr hotwheels."
Don't confuse your mockery for intelligence, nor your nonunderstanding for unsoundness of the argument.
That only works on reddit.

Get out, cancerous newfags. Sup Forums has always been a Christian board.

Anti-Christian shills may be invading Sup Forums; be wary.

>I understand the logic,
No you didn't; I accidentally deleted two of the premises.
>but can you provide physical evidence for your claims?*
A "claim" is implicitly defined as untrue. It isn't a claim; it's a conclusion.
>For example, a miracle which God unquestionably wrought, which can not be attained by any other means. Proof of bodily** resurrection would suffice.***
The problem with the "Show me a miracle." contention is that a "miracle" is defined as impossible and therefore non-existent. Life is a "miracle." All of existence is evidence of God's existence and your presumed denial of that is of no consequence. The validity of evidence isn't contingent on its tangibility. Evidence is also epistemic, therefore evidence doesn't exist without logical inference. I've provided logical inference so that you may recognize evidence in the world for God's existence. Your having not observed proof of a resurrection is not sufficient to assess the likelihood of God's existence.

*Subtle mockery through insinuation of incredibility
**Suble mockery through redundancy
***Subtle mockery through insinuation that Jesus never rose from the dead
Atheists act like this because they are entirely intellectually unequipped, but still want their way like whiny children. This isn't a sincere inquiry; it is a whine.

Morality comes from empathy, which is a natural development of our behavior that facilitates cooperation and survival.

pretentious fgt

please christ chan be my christian gf

The burden of proof is currently to disprove him. Provide a counter example or a refutation, please. With some semblance of logic

Morality is just a human construct that stops us from hurting/killing each other. There is no good or evil, just what we label good and evil.

The burden of proof is on the one who made the original claim, which would be you.

Language isn't pure math, where it is pure math it stops being language. Logic and reality are fundamentally divorced.

Philosophy is dead, Hume killed it. Stop with the necrophilia.

Sup Forums is a Christian board

atheists can go back to
>>>/reddit/

>God exists so the Bible is right about him/it/her
Wrong.

You only 'proved' that SOME KIND Of conscious moral creature exists.

For all we know Zoroaster got it right and everyone else just badly cribbed his style.

18. Could you please explain how this follows from 15, 16 and 17?
20. I'm happy that morality is contingent on objective consciousness, but I'm not sure that it is contingent on objective consequence. This is because conscious people can be so mentally ill that nothing is of any consequence to them. They would then lose their moral agency, which would make it okay to do anything to them.
23. Some abstract things would then not exist? Eg. things that only exist periodically (daylight?), paradoxes, solutions to problems... I think you need to define 'absent' and 'exist'.
24. Or, any other moral agent? Couldn't an individual's consciousness be the origin of their morality?

If god always was, was not created by a higher power, and is truly omnipotent then he knows this. Therefore you worship an atheist. How can you judge soneone for following gods example.

thats the whole point of satan, you have to serve

What?
People actually have morals?

not on our country, no

Hey. You guys remember when satan flooded the earth killing everyone but one family. Shit that was the other guy.

What is morality?

lol why dont you kill yourself fishman fag

Better yet, why wont you let your wife be filled with nigger cum, since they too have souls and you are supposed to turn the other cheek. Your wives vagina cheek, kek.

a spook

>1. There is only the conscious and the nonconscious. (p ^ p' = everything)

wrong, right off the bat you are wrong. stopped reading there. reported the thread. called the police. fugged ur mum.

>Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning.

How does that add up? The consequence of a meteor hitting my car doesn't imply objective meaning.

Religion is for weak minded people who need to receive presents after they've been good.

*TIPS FEDORA*

>12. Evil is defined as absence of goodness. (Definition)
According to whom? I can easily come up with an alternative definition.
>24. God exists. (From 12, 14, 19, 22, and 23)
At no point is God mentioned in 12, 14, 19, 22 or 23. Nothing about those necessitates God in any kind of way. You either left out some reasoning or just pulled that final conclusion out of your ass to fit your bias.

What separates humans from animals is not the soul, every living being has one. It's the Holy Spirit, the voice in our head that forces us to ask questions about ourselves and what is right and what is wrong. Rarely can you find the Holy Spirit within you without God.

Holy spirit. I thought that had something to do with a snake and an apple. So satan gave man morals.

Go Home Pagan. And quit using you're wooden Wotan statue to satiate your faggot tendencies.

No, God created us in His image, meaning He made us like him, with the capacity to think beyond ourselves. When Adam and Eve sinned, they gave us the knowledge of good and evil, of which before we were naive of the latter.

>Circular logic: The Post
I thought this was just a Christian stereotype. Wew lad.

I'm pretty sure i know how not to be an asshole without specific belief in on of the thousands of deities we've come up with over the years.
While i agree the bible is full of moral lessons, if you really need a book to instruct you on how not to be a cunt you're probably a shit person.

I believe in none of those.

>only the conscious and nonconscious
What about the semi-conscious, like insects?

>Modern Society
>muh tabala rasa.
>Cultural Marxism

Please, tell me more on how we don't need guidance :^)

If power corrupts, and if absolute corrupts absolutely; would any existing god be the most corrupt being possible?

I agree that this is where it falls apart. Yes, consequence can have significance (Subjectively) but it in no way applies that there is objective significance or that it has objective meaning.

I'm actually a theist

ugh, is this how philosophy majors "prove" things?

Analytical philosophy ruined philosophy

philosophy was never good

Sage

>10. Objective, significant consequence implies objective meaning. (Premise)
No it does not, unless you claim there is an objective meaning to earthquakes and erosion.

Im not reading all that.