u/DecentTreat4309

I would say I am a Libertarian basically due to Michael Huemers arguments. I believe in moral realism. Michael Huemer argues from very basic common sense morality that political authority is not valid. This is something I have essentially thought all my life. There is no reason why the state should have any rights others should not have.

My question is how popular is Michael Huemer among ancaps? How popular are his arguments? He is a very broad philosopher engaged with all parts of philosophy essentially. He is also a vegan for ethical reasons which I also am.

I essentially wonder also are people ancaps because they genuinely believe like I do that political authority is immoral or is it more because of prudential reasons / egoist reasons?

In general I highly recommend Michael Huemer. I agree with him on essentially 99% of all things mainly because I agree with his epistemology of "phenomenal conservatism" which I think is the only viable epistemology which is essentially just common sense epistemology and his views on all other aspects of philosophy follow from that.

I now believe there seems like there is an intelligent creator. Or ot seems more likely than not.

Some of the motivations for me believing this are the contingency argument (and its stronger form the modal cosmological argument not to be confused with the modal ontological argument). The unmoved mover argument is also pretty good but not as decisive for me.

The main reason is four teleological / design arguments: the fine tuning argument, psychophysical harmony, nomological harmony and psychonomic harmony (by Joe Schmid). Specifically psychophysical and psychonomic. These arguments are extremely good. Even Richard Dawkins says that the fine tuning argument could rationally convince one to be a deist.

If you are not familiar with all the arguments I just said I would highly recommend looking them up. They are extremely good.

Anyway those are the main arguments for me that really move me.

I just can't be a traditional theist though who believes in an all good god because of the problem of evil especially natural evil such as tsunamis and the evolutionary history of suffering of animals. Free will does not explain this.

But I do believe in an intelligent designer. Agnostic Paul Draper argues that "aesthetic deism" which is a view of god which states that he is motivated by aesthetic beauty rather than moral goodness creates the world the way it is to be beautiful.

This just makes a lot of sense. The world seems largely indifferent to good and evil and pleasure and pain seem randomly dispersed and virtuous people don't necessarily end up better of than people with vices. I am a moral realist as well and I believe goodness has nothing to do with god because of the eurythpro dilemma.

Maybe "aesthetic" deism is wrong and god is not motivated by aesthetic requirements but he is motivated by something else.

Essentially I just think there is a lot of reasons to infer an intelligent designer of the world. It just is very intuitive based on how harmonious everything is. And I dont mean just on a biology level but on the level of physical laws (which make the biology inevitable) and psychophysical laws (there are so many reasons to believe consciousness is immaterial such as the hard problem of consciousness and I am far more confident that consciousness is immaterial than that deism is true).

Anyway I dont believe that the deist god would have to be evil. Just morally ambiguous and motivated by some other transcendental ideal.