Atheists prove god doesn't exist?

Well, if that's the definition of materialism then it's trivially false indeed. There are all sorts of things that exist conceptually without having energy or mass or occupying spacetime etc. Numbers, for example. But there's a little problem there, in that these kinds of things don't seem to cause or influence "material" events. Even consciousness is a tough one. I'm not particularly familiar with the literature, but from what I have read it seems like the growing consensus is that consciousness is little more than a byprodct of neurochemical processes and doesn't actually "do" anything.




Justify that. Sounds like an insane assumption to me!




I don't know, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer! Or maybe they don't come from anywhere; perhaps they simply exist. Or maybe, if we concede that what's "good" is simply a function of the suffering/wellbeing of sentient creatures - and that suffering and wellbeing can be quantified in an objective fashion - we have an objective system without needing anything fancy whatsoever!




Because it would be moral to do so. That's what morality means! If you think "what is good" is equivalent to "what will get me to the afterlife" I think we're facing a grave misunderstanding of what morality is!




As above, this is circular. "It's the right thing to do" is a good reason. If it is moral to good (which it is, by definition), it doesn't cease to be moral simply because it won't get you to heaven.




But this rather presupposes that material reality needed to be created by something at all...





I'm not sure. But in physics, we observe strict causality in physical things (aside from the stochastic processes of quantum theory). So far as I can see there simply isn't any room for non-physical causes?

They have no objective meaning

if there is no God, because they don't exist. There is no rational reason for anybody to be moral at all without God.

Materialism is the belief that only material things exist. Material things are objects composed of mass-energy in physical space-time. If consciousness is not a physical object and yet exists it must follow that materialism is false.

God is the only reasonable grounding for objective morals. Where else could they possibly come from? And why would objective morals matter without an afterlife. If there is no after life why should I care at all about anyone other than myself? There is absolutely no good reason to do so. If atheism is true than Ayn Rand is right to say that unadulterated self interest is the only rational position apart from an absolute nihilism.

Of course God must be immaterial to create material reality - if he was material then material reality would necessarily exist before he created it, which makes no sense. The idea that metaphysical causes cannot possibly affect physical reality cannot just be asserted without substantiation. How do you know that an immaterial God could not interfere with physical reality, especially if he brought physical reality into being.

Are you sure? As far as I'm aware that may suggest that, but I don't think that has definitely proven anything. Besides, that wouldn't refute the possibility of previous Big Crunches.

Exactly, what? Yes, consciousness exists, who's denying that? But as far as we know consciousness is a product of our brain, as it can be altered and impaired by impairing the brain. There is nothing to suggest it is supernatural, and if that's what you're claiming then you must provide evidence.

Yes, it would disprove materialism if that were the case, but it hasn't been proven that consciousness is immaterial and even if it were, how would that prove God exists?

You got that right. There is no objective morality. Morality stems from the society in which it prevails, and changes with time, place and society's views. The Incas found it moral to enact human sacrifices; we don't. Many followers of your god found (and still find) it moral to enact stoning for adultery, which is seen as barbaric in western society. Fifty years ago this society found homosexuality repugnant and immoral; not now.



There are plenty of rational reasons for society to have a moral compass sans deities. Survival and prosperity are just two.

If atheism is true then the words 'cruel' and 'murderous' are morally neutral.

You clearly haven't grasped the magnitude of the problem. If God does not exist then right and wrong are delusions of homo sapiens produced for some evolutionary reason. They have no objective meaning, such that an atheist cannot sincerely think that selfishness is objectively 'bad' or think selflessness to be objectively 'good' because neither good nor evil exist in objective reality.

Morals are meaningless no matter how many people think they aren't, if there is no God, because they don't exist. There is no rational reason for anybody to be moral at all without God. Also, Christians are not good to get into heaven. They are good because they believe that objective morality exists and as part of the nature of God Himself ought to be respected. Christians believe they are going to heaven only because of the death of Jesus. Not because of good works. That's one of the most basic points of Pauline theology.

go ahead

Except that if atheism is true then desiring the good of others is irrational unless it serves me. So if it would serve me to wreck society and I can, there is absolutely no reason why I shouldn't do it.

It wouldn't prove that God exists, that's not the point. The point is it would disprove materialism. And of course I'm not so dumb as to say that consciousness is unrelated to the brain. The problem is that if mass-energy were the totality of reality, human beings would necessarily be very complex, but quite unconscious, machines. If consciousness is some sort of illusion, what is perceiving the illusion? Surely you are not suggesting that the atoms themselves are capable of such a thing?

Incorrect, they are neutral, objectively speaking. But not subjectively speaking, the non-existence of objective morals does not mean we cannot create our own moral code and abide by it.



So what if there is no objective meaning, there doesn't have to be!

Btw, can you stop dodging and address the Euthyphro Dilemma concerning God's moral code?

But you're now changing the topic of the debate, this isn't about materialism's existence, it's about God's. And you can thrown hypotheticals round all you want, but until you provide evidence for them your statements are meaningless, just like me saying "If we proved Hogwarts was real then magic must exist"

Non-sequitur. You are making that claim on the assumption that consciousness is immaterial, which you have yet to show!

Humans are very much conscious, and as all the evidence suggests, it is entirely a product of biology, not immaterial nonsense.

I don't know what could be perceiving it, but what has that go to do with proving God?

But that's just the point! Why on earth ought I to follow a subjective, imaginary moral code chosen by someone else when it doesn't benefit me. You haven't given me any rational reason to be even the slightest bit altruistic under atheism other than, 'society says you should'. So what if it does? Why should I care? Why ought I deny myself pleasure because of other people's delusions? Why abide by the code when it doesn't suit me to do so? You have given no reason.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is not really a dilemma at all. Good is not what God chooses it to be, nor some external standard He must obey, but rather the character of God is the definition of good. God himself provides the definition of good in his own nature: love is good because God is loving by his nature.

Atheists can't prove God doesn't exist.

You appear to be concerned only with self. You clearly don't understand what morality is about, and you also clearly don't understand that atheism involves only a lack of belief in gods; it says nothing about the atheists other beliefs, which could encompass spirituality and moral principles.

But that's just the point! Why on earth ought I to follow a subjective, imaginary moral code chosen by someone else when it doesn't benefit me. You haven't given me any rational reason to be even the slightest bit altruistic under atheism other than, 'society says you should'. So what if it does? Why should I care? Why ought I deny myself pleasure because of other people's delusions? Why abide by the code when it doesn't suit me to do so? You have given no reason.

I am attacking materialism first because if materialism is true then God is necessarily false. Hence in order to talk about God I must show that there are reasonable grounds for rejecting materialism.

In terms of consciousness being 'natural' aka materialistic, I can build a computer which can do mathematical calculation but I don't believe that the computer in conscious of it's own 'thought' process. If we were just material machines consciousness would have no origin since it would be entirely unnecessary. Why ought it exist at all if everything I do is pre-determined by physical causality and chemical reactions? If materialism is true then I ought to be no more conscious than a rock, since the rock and I would be fundamentally the same - material objects composed of elementary particles and nothing more. The fact that I move is irrelevant. Robotic arms can move without consciousness.

My point is that if atheism is true then being moral makes no sense. Again, why ought I not to be selfish if atheism is true? Given me a reason other than your own meaningless and subjective value judgement that selfishness is wrong. Why is selfishness wrong? Why isn't morality just as much of a delusion as God under atheism? I think I know why: because you know that objective morals exist and that is why you keep rejecting the nihilism that must follow from atheism.

How can morality be about anything under atheism when it is no more real than a flying pink unicorn: morality is just an idea in people's minds if atheism is true!

My point is that if atheism is true then being moral makes no sense. Again, why ought I not to be selfish if atheism is true? Given me a reason other than your own meaningless and subjective value judgement that selfishness is wrong. Why is selfishness wrong? Why isn't morality just as much of a delusion as God under atheism? I think I know why: because you know that objective morals exist and that is why you keep rejecting the nihilism that must follow from atheism.

How can morality be about anything under atheism when it is no more real than a flying pink unicorn: morality is just an idea in people's minds if atheism is true!

It's not chosen by "someone else", they're morals that humans have come up with to live in peace. And of course they benefit you! Our collective aversion against things like robbery, murder etc and our laws in place to punish that go a long way to ensure those things don't happen to you. See, morality can be very easily explained by evolution. If early humans didn't share, cooperate and protect each other, their chances of survival would have been very slim indeed.

Your argument is fallacious. You are under no obligation to care, but that doesn't negate the positive impact it has on holding society together. In addition, objective morals would be no better, religious people believe in them and they commit just as much crime and go against God's rules as anyone else.



Of course it's a dilemma. Interestingly, you have just contradicted yourself. You have refused to say it's either one of the options (when it has to be) and then in the next sentence tried to combine the 2 to avoid answering the contradiction.

If God chooses something to be good then it is subjective morality, i.e. he is choosing it himself and thus is no different to humans choosing morals.

If it is an external standard which he is obeying then there is something that God has no control over, nullifying his omnipotence. It would be appreciated if you could actually answer it and stop dodging.