Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #190]

I'm not sure I agree that deconverts (converts from) are lacking in interest in science.

My argument wasn't that they did. I specified the type of science the interest was lacking.

If we have similar archetypes it is because we evolved to have the same instincts, not because we are connected to some cosmic gas cloud with a liking for micromanagement.

I don't think we have near enough evidence to go making claims that mind is gaseous.

________
When human personalities argue for or against the idea of being within an intelligently designed existence (this universe - gut feelings and all) I am not so sure that they know what it is they are talking about.

The way I view the question (are we or are we not within something intelligently designed) is to place aside religious mythology and atheistic views altogether and simply look at what knowledge we know about the Universe, the Earth (specifically) within the Universe, and our experience (as humans) within the Earth. (I say "within" the Earth as to also include the biosphere as the integral aspect of the Earth.)

In this way, I can be assured that those two positions have no influential bias on the outcome of any answer which might be forthcoming.

I then approach attempting to answer the question by examining the theory scientific investigation has created, starting with the Big Bang.

The first epochs of the event happened incredibly fast - something which reminds me of the idea of instant manifestation re the concept of ID.
I examine those theories and ask if they show any sign or non sign of intelligent design. The answer is inconclusive. I move on in this manner through the epochs, right up to present and still the answer is inconclusive.

What is conclusive is that the universe is still in a state of becoming. At this point (here/now) it becomes clear that yes indeed there is evidence for ID in the fact of the Earth having become a habitat for intelligent (mindful) life, an indication that there may well be something to the idea of ID.

I see no practical reason to critique something as "unintelligent" while it is still in the dawn of its becoming and thus no practical reason to adopt the belief in atheism/the beliefs of atheism.
Likewise with the mythology of religion. No requirement therein to take those literally.

So I focus on what IS in every appearance, intelligent and see what it is saying and doing about itself, in relation to where it is finding itself within.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. The proble is still assuming God,Mind and ID to be the de4fault theory when it is inconclusive. You made someother errors that are sideline like the BB is NOT the point but yhe origin of the cosmic struff from which nout universe came (Big Bag or'Great Unfolding'or whatever is the stae of the hypothesis).

The question and only question is whether the Cosmic stuff was intelligently created or not, or even whether it was created, and it might be so basic a 'stuff'that it doesn'tneed to be created, Atheitiheist and I discussed this and I referred to the idea of virtualparticles appearing in a vacuum (nothing) and so tyhe cosmos and the universe (universes) created within it could appear naturally .

The evidence is surely whether the Universe we know (we know nothing of possible other universes or the Cosmos outside - if there is one as postulated) show signs of intelligent design or of natural evolution (chemical evolution, as I think I referred to).

Chemical evolution - universe, stars, solar system, earth.
biological;evolution - abiogenesis, plants, animals,man,
Social evolution, society, civilisation, morals and ethics.

Is any of that explained better by natural unplanned processes or planned (intelligent design) processes.

ID fails on biology, it failed on morals, and it appearsto me to fail of ID in our universe. I have heard the arguments (constants) and I'm not convinced but am willing to accept there may be someevidence.

But the problem there is a natural explanation for that evidence isn' found - yet. Theists complain about this. 'Science always says "We don'tknow - yet" so Theism can never win.

Yes, it cannot, which is why it always loses. It has no mechanism, not reat Explanation, just 'it looks designed' only because that design (apparently) hasn't had a natural explanation - yet.

It seems to me that ID fails by its' nature because Theists assume Unknowns are gaps for a god. They are, but that is just bone possible hypothesis - it is not evidence for anything until we have the explanation.

I'm willing to hear (again) any evidence for a cosmic mind (human consciousness is not - the evidence we have suggests independent mental processes, with similar instincts and processes but not 'connected' despite Jungian archetypes. Our instincts, are inherent from evolution - not put there by a god or a cosmic mind. Not in any hypothesis that I credit.

Over to you. Just bear in mind assuming a god as the 'given' default is invalid and the fallacy that invalidates all theist arguments. Including of course the of cited, notorious and invalid kalam, as an argument for a god - and Lane - Craig knows this as he notably avoids any mention of a god.