On the contrary, The argument isn’t that theism is justified because it makes people ‘happy’ but is justified because it ‘works’ in their lives.
I don't think anyone is arguing religion does not exist. As for how well it works thats open to question. Atheists tend to be more successful and long lived than theists. Theists make wonderful cannon fodder and dupes for political movements.. draw your own conclusions.
Because the brain has receptors that accomodate opiates does not mean it's good to take them. But you are correct.. what that research shows is that indeed, Marx was more right than he knew. Religion is
literally the opiate of the masses.
Asking whether or not he can make a stone so heavy that he can’t lift is a meaningless question according to him.
Because he believed it to be meaningless doesn't mean it is.
But we needn't stop there. If god is omnipotent then he cannot be bounded. If we can know something about him he can be bounded by our logic and perception, ergo he is not omnipotent, ergo he is not god if God must be omnipotent. If god is not omnipotent then hes just some more advanced critter on the evolutionary ladder and not God. If God can only do the possible he is again, not omnipotent.
If he is omnipotent then he must be unknowable. If he's unknowable then he is moot to our existence. If he is unknowable then we can not assert that he has any properties whatsoever. Including the property of existence or the property of nonexistence.
How does one define “evil”? Who defines ‘evil’? Who gets to say whether or not something is bad or good? Can such a thing be done?
The subject defines evil. We do. A hypothetical sentient ant would correctly describe me as evil when I poison his anthill. My emotional state may be indifferent, malicious, or pitying for the thing I must do. In any case I am certainly evil to the ants.
Clearly, A moral law means that there must be a moral law maker.
Of course. We make them, and don't do so uniformly by any means. Cultural morals differ a lot. Ask a fundamentalist muslim a list of questions you ask a christian or a hindi. The answers won't be heterogenous.
Our brains are receiving input from our senses every second of every day.
Yet a mere receiver cannot act. The fact we receive information does not imply that is the only function. In fact it is merely tautological. Any system which can act on data must receive it as well.
I think you are arguing here against substrate independence to try to convince yourself there is a soul. I suspect that is forlorn and soon enough computer science will be proving substrate independence.
If there were evidence of the soul we would not be having this discussion. A soul is a pretty happy idea.. it would be nice think to think they are real. Given proof not many would reject it. Certainly not me.
It's pretty amusing watching people deny the fact that my initial post proves God yet jump through hoops to evade refuting a single one of my arguments sentence by sentence.
See preceding
Congratulations for trying to tackle the tough nuts tho. Most theists won't go there. And as you attempt to stay logical you may learn.. there is hope for you
