The Black Vault

Sleepwalk wrote:

at1with0 wrote:What makes infinite regress illogical other than you stating that it is.

Because we observe the present. If the past were an actually infinite cascade of causes and effects, then the present would have never arrived.

Why not?

at1with0 wrote:

Sleepwalk wrote:

at1with0 wrote:What makes infinite regress illogical other than you stating that it is.

Because we observe the present. If the past were an actually infinite cascade of causes and effects, then the present would have never arrived.

Why not?

Because an actual infinite quantity of anything would be inexhaustible.

Doesn't follow.

How many moments are there between when I started to write this and when I finished writing this?

at1with0 wrote:Doesn't follow.

I'm glad that you don't think it follows, but you're going to have to show why.

How many moments are there between when I started to write this and when I finished writing this?

That depends on how you define moment, but however you define moment, there was an actual finite number of moments between when you started and finished writing your post. If there were an actual infinite number of moments, then you would have never finished writing.

Isn't this... common sense?

event_horizon wrote:Craig a nutshell:

Just another brainwashed victim...indoctrinated at an early age. Taking his religion to a whole new level -- a level not seen since Christianity was born. A modern theological manipulator that can easily sway weak-minded individuals. He does to Christians and potential Christians today what the founders did long ago -- deceive brilliantly.

More critical thinking? Brainwashed victims do not have 2-summa cum laudi Masters degrees in Theology, and win every debate they are in against atheists, who you tell us are the only critical thinkers.

Sleepwalk wrote:

humphreys wrote:Empty space, or the quantum field may have always existed.

Why not? Science does not refute this possibility, neither does logic.

There is no scientific evidence that the quantum field has always existed; and a quantum field that has always existed would run into the problem of infinite regress, so it doesn't appear logical either.

At least there is scientific evidence that the quantum field exists! There is no scientific evidence that God exists, let alone eternally. Score 1 for the atheists there.

An unchanging quantum field does not run into the problem of infinite regress, and if it does, so does your God. You are a best on level footing with that objection.

Sleepwalk wrote:

You already know my response to this, there doesn't need to be a cause in a lawless pre-Universe state

Laws are just descriptions of the universe. If the universe were different, then there would be a different description of how the universe worked and thus different laws. If there were no universe, then there wouldn't be any laws and thus no descriptions.
This is different from the idea that there are cosmic policemen running around making sure everyone obeys gravity; and if there were no cosmic policemen, then people could just do whatever they wanted.
A state of nonbeing would have absolutely nothing and therefore wouldn't be able to restrict, encourage, obey, disobey, or produce anything.

Your first paragraph is just semantics on the word "law" which have no bearing on my argument. Even if you treat "laws" as "descriptions of the way the Universe is", the laws of the pre-Universe state would still not be the same, so things like cause and effect would not be descriptions of that realm or state.

No one has experience of non-being, so no one is able to say what can and cannot come out of it. You again make the mistake of applying logic of this Universe to a pre-Universe state, about something you have no true concept of. You are being a little arrogant, closed-minded, and illogical in imposing logic and rules to a state of non-being, of which you know literally nothing about.

To you non-being means that truly nothing can come out it of it, to me non-being is a state of infinite possibility without restriction. At best they are interpretations of nothingness that cannot be shown true or false, either way. Again, stalemate at best, but I am not invoking all-powerful beings, simply looking at the problem of "nothingness" in what I think is a more rational way. When we look at "nothingness" in quantum vacuums and so on, we see that these are very unstable states in which some very surprising and seemingly illogical things happen.

Sleepwalk wrote:No, it's because any naturalistic explanation is logically invalid, without scientific evidence, or flies in the face of contemporary scientific evidence.

So you keep asserting, but I don't think your arguments are showing that.

Sleepwalk wrote:If the current and possible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe are all irrational in one way or another, then that's a signpost pointing towards the supernatural.

If by "supernatural" you mean above and beyond this Universe, then, of course, by very definition whatever caused the Universe would have to be "supernatural", but that's just more semantics that bring us no closer to any form of understanding.

I consider it naturalistic and not supernatural because I consider this pre-Universe "realm" or "state" a part of the bigger picture on what we can call reality. Part of the multiverse.

Sleepwalk wrote:And I have no problem searching outside of the universe--the natural world--for an explanation of its origins. Because where else would the cause of all the natural world be? Surely not within it.

Exactly. We need to be careful on our definition of "Universe" though. Universe can mean this existence in its current form, or "all that is", and the terms are often used interchangeably.

Sleepwalk wrote:If you saw a cake on the table and asked who or what created this cake, would you not accept the answer, "a cook"? Would you first need to know where the cook went to school, his ethnicity, how he learned to bake cakes, and how the cake was made before you would accept the answer as a valid explanation?

Not if we are trying to scientifically explain existence itself, no.

A closer analogy would be asking "Who killed this dead woman I see lying on the street?", and then answering "A man". In which case "a man" is not sufficient, no. And if the question was "Where do cakes come from?" we certainly would want to know the process involved in baking a cake from scratch, right down to the individual ingredients.

Your analogy really does not relate well to a theory of everything. If it did, when you ask me "What created the Universe?" I would just say "The multiverse".

Sleepwalk wrote:

Cause and effect is a law based on observation of the Universe. If the Universe was different, cause and effect might work differently, or it might work in reverse, or in a chaotic one, not at all.

I wouldn't go that far, since I think cause and effect is part of logic and that logic is fundamental. It's strange watching an atheist setting up the game in a way in which he'll be able to ignore or undermine logic later on, but I digress.

It's even stranger that a theist confidently declares that logic is fundamental, as if he has evidence it goes above and beyond the Universe it inhabits. Where is your evidence for that claim?

Sleepwalk wrote:Nonbeing is devoid of all properties, powers, etc., and so it wouldn't be able to produce anything.

It does not make sense to say "nonbeing" produces "being", rather "being" comes into existence in the state of nonbeing because there are no restrictions on what can and cannot happen. Nonbeing to me is a state, not a thing, or lack of a thing. As science has shown, it is also an unstable state.

If something cannot come from nothing, what did God make the Universe from?

You are essentially saying your God can defy Universal law such as cause and effect because he is all powerful, I am simply saying in an unstable state of non-existence, there are no laws to defy.

Sleepwalk wrote:How could something without properties or causal powers be able to produce something? The answer, obviously, is that it couldn't.

Cause and effect does not apply to a lawless state of nonbeing. The word "produces" implies a process of cause and effect, that is the wrong approach. As Krauss says in his article, we probably have to rethink our entire approach of cause and effect in a pre-Universe state.

Sleepwalk wrote:Now, you came up with some whacky idea that a state of nonbeing wouldn't have laws and therefore "anything goes." There's two things wrong with this idea. One, even if it were true that "anything goes" in such a state, there would be nothing present to take advantage of the freedom. The second problem with this idea is that natural laws are merely physical descriptions of how the universe works. And so if there are no universe, then there's nothing to describe; and if there's nothing to describe, then there are no laws. When scientists talk about theories and laws, they're not talking about a cosmic list of rules that the universe needs to obey or else. They're just talking about how it is. You're equivocating physical descriptions of how the universe operates with how law is used when referring to a board game or courtroom.

First, "law" is used in science in both fashions - both as description, and beyond that, as actual restriction.

You continue to apply logic and descriptions or laws of this Universe to a pre-Universe state, and then pretend to know how true nothingness functions, and further treat nothingness as a thing, rather than a state. I think I have addressed each of your objections here earlier in this post.

Second, there is nothing whacky about what I have said aside from your assertion that that's the case.

Whatever way you look at it, something we might deem "whacky" happened back then, and an all powerful God breathing life into existence is as whacky as it gets.

Sleepwalk wrote:Finally, the quantum field isn't nonbeing.

True, that is a completely separate theory on what existed pre-Universe, one Krauss mentions in his book, and is also quite valid.

Sleepwalk wrote:Because whatever caused the universe would need to be necessary or else we're faced with an infinite regress--or the idea of something being produced by nonbeing. Both of which counter reason.

The "reason" of this Universe alone.

Don't you think if the Universe were different, reason would be different too? Different brains, different laws, same reason? Very unlikely.

You treat reason and logic as fundamental in all existence, I do not.

The bolded part does not follow, to me.

Sleepwalk wrote:Are you going to throw reason out the window just so you can avoid God? Is this what atheism is?

I am not throwing it out the window, reason is valid in all discussions within the framework of this Universe, so is science and logic, and everything else atheism and science hold dear. Before the Universe existed though? Who knows, but I am comfortable throwing it out, or tweaking it in discussion of that state, which is more in the realm of philosophy and not science by the way, so yes.

Sleepwalk wrote:Time didn't exist until God created it.

If time does not exist, God cannot do anything.

Think about that, what you are suggesting, doing something outside of time, is far more illogical and anti-reason than anything mentioned in this entire debate. If you don't act within time, you don't act at all.

Does God think? If so, he thinks within the framework of time. Maybe not our time, but time. If you act in time, you run into the infinite regress problem.

Theists are so happy to break their own rules of logic when it comes to God.

Sleepwalk wrote:God was timeless prior to creation and is in time subsequent to creation. God wasn't thinking things like, "Hmm, what should I have for dinner tonight?" for an infinite amount of time before creating the universe. He just existed perfectly in a timeless state until He decided to create the universe.

LOL. Decision requires thought!

You can't suddenly decide to do something if you're in a timeless state!

Come on, you're being silly now.

Sleepwalk wrote:And now you're trying to say that nonbeing is somehow regulated, which is why it wouldn't be able to produce only one big bang?

Not regulated, no. It's not done on a timer or something.

If being can arise from a state of nonbeing, then given infinite time, it will do so an infinite number of times.

Sleepwalk wrote:I think most historians consider the Bible a collection of historic documents, which is one of the big reasons why they think Jesus of Nazareth was an actual person.
And I'm not presuming the Bible is accurate. I'm just going by what historians say. What are you going by?

Forget authority, their opinions differ on the matter anyway.

What reason do we have to assume what the Bible says is accurate regards the supernatural events it describes? We have none, but we have plenty of reasons to doubt.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not just words in a book.

Sleepwalk wrote:I watched that discussion between Kagan and Craig years ago, and I didn't see anything interesting about it, which is why I'm asking you what you found so compelling. Are you trying to get me to form your arguments for you?
Craig was at a loss for words because he was in a discussion, not a debate. He was trying to learn and understand, not chop Shelly up into pieces. What Kagan was saying isn't anything new.
Under atheism, what makes acts like torturing babies objectively wrong? Is there anything?

It is wrong because it harms babies. Simple as that. Morality comes from reason.

humphreys wrote:At least there is scientific evidence that the quantum field exists! There is no scientific evidence that God exists, let alone eternally. Score 1 for the atheists there.

I wouldn't expect science, a tool used for observing, measuring, and predicting natural phenemenon to be able to detect the trascendent cause of the natural world.

An unchanging quantum field does not run into the problem of infinite regress

Quantum fields aren't unchanging.

But how would an unchanging natural process be able to produce a universe?

Your first paragraph is just semantics on the word "law"

Word definitions are important. You seem to think a natural law is some sort of cosmic policeman. It's not.

which have no bearing on my argument. Even if you treat "laws" as "descriptions of the way the Universe is", the laws of the pre-Universe state would still not be the same

There wouldn't be any natural laws prior to the creation of the universe, because there would be no natural world to describe.

No one has experience of non-being, so no one is able to say what can and cannot come out of it.

Nonbeing isn't something that can be experienced. How would one experience nonbeing? If you think of nonbeing as pitch darkness or an empty room, you're already giving nonbeing too much credit. Nonbeing simply means non-existence or that which doesn't exist. A state of non-existence. A state where there are no properties, any sort of reality, or existence.

And in order for there to be a cause, there needs to be, at the very least, existence--or some sort of potentiality. Nonbeing has neither.

You again make the mistake of applying logic of this Universe to a pre-Universe state, about something you have no true concept of.

Now you're equivocating natural laws with logic. We use reason and logic to observe and understand natural laws.

And you also seem to still not understand that natural laws are not cosmic policemen. Meaning, it wouldn't mean "anything goes" once the cosmic policemen are eliminated. There are no cosmic policemen. There are only descriptions of reality. If there is no reality to describe, then there are no laws. And if there is no reality, then that doesn't magically mean "anything goes." What exactly would be "going" in a state of nonbeing, anyway?

You are being a little arrogant, closed-minded, and illogical in imposing logic and rules to a state of non-being, of which you know literally nothing about.

I think your whole line of thinking about this matter is muddled, but let me follow your "logic" for a moment. According to your own ideas, you too are guilty of using "this universes logic" to describe what can go on in a state of nonbeing. You propose that since there are no laws in a state of nonbeing, then that means anything goes. This hypothesis is based on your, however muddled, logic. But you also believe that logic may not apply to a state of nonbeing. So it would seem you're undercutting yourself or speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

To you non-being means that truly nothing can come out
it of it

That's true, nonexistence couldn't possibly produce existence. Nonexistence has no causal powers.

to me non-being is a state of infinite possibility without restriction.

Why would a state of nonbeing, or nonexistence, possess infinite possibility?

I'm really starting to wonder here now. Are you trolling me? I don't know anymore.

This is getting ridiculous...

I think I'm done. I feel like I'm just repeating the same points and rebuttals again at this point. And the rest of your post looks like the same utter nonsense that I rebutted in my first few posts.

But I will answer the new points in your last post.

I consider it naturalistic and not supernatural because I consider this pre-Universe "realm" or "state" a part of the bigger picture on what we can call reality. Part of the multiverse.

Great, so what caused the multiverse. Or was it the multiverse that popped into existence uncaused from nonbeing? Eventually, you're going to have to confront that question.

A closer analogy would be asking "Who killed this dead woman I see lying on the street?", and then answering "A man".

No, I'm pretty sure my original analogy was fine.

If it did, when you ask me "What created the Universe?" I would just say "The multiverse".

Which would be sidestepping the heart of this discussion.

The issue here is there are a number of implications that come with atheism. If you believe there is no God, then that means you either believe the universe, multiverse, sausageverse, or whatever you want to call it popped into existence from literally nothing. Or you must believe that the multiverse or sausageverse extends infinitely into the past, which is also logically incoherent.

In either case, you're forced to abandon reason.

It's even stranger that a theist confidently declares that logic is fundamental

Oh boy, we better stop this discussion now then since logic is a wash. Our arguments amount to gobbledygook and neither of us is right or wrong. We're just drifting along in the abyss, right?

Not quite. I was being sarcastic. I presume logic is fundamental and true because I use it all the time and have had no experience of it failing me, just like I presume that I'm not a brain hooked up to a machine being stimulated in such a way that I've imagined the world around me along with its people.

Do you not see how it's self-referentially incoherent to use reason to support the proposition that reason isn't true or faulty?

By the way, logic and natural laws are two different things, which I've already explained in my previous posts. You should stop equivocating the two.

It does not make sense to say "nonbeing" produces "being"

I know.

rather "being" comes into existence in the state of
nonbeing

How?

because there are no restrictions on what can and cannot happen.

What do you mean there are no restrictions? No restrictions on what? There isn't anything to encourage or restrict. And the "restrictions" you're talking about aren't really restrictions... they're just the way in which the world behaves, most of the time. And if there is nothing, then there is no behavior... there are no laws... there are no actual descriptions.

Are you going back to that whacky idea that natural laws are cosmic policemen again?

If something cannot come from nothing, what did God make the Universe from?

He produced it using His own faculties. God isn't nonbeing or nothing. And God didn't take nonbeing and then create using it. There was just nonbeing outside of God, and then God created universe using His omnipotence.

This is different from the idea of nonbeing somehow producing something without anything. If you had said nonbeing isn't actually nonbeing, but some sort of process or entity that possessed the causal powers to bring the universe into existence, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But you're trying to say that nonbeing or nonexistence could somehow produce something.

If time does not exist, God cannot do anything.

God is an unembodied mind, so He possesses no moving parts; He doesn't have neurons that send neurotransmitters. He's not some sort of computer or natural process, so there were no temporal events going on inside His mind. He existed in a timeless state (because there were no temporal events) prior to the creation of the universe, but stepped inside time subsequent to creation. Creation was the first temporal event, in other words.

If you don't act within time, you don't act at all

I already wrote that once God acted He stepped inside of time.

Does God think? If so, he thinks within the framework of time.

LOL. Decision requires thought!

I don't think He does think, at least not in the same sense that we think. What would an omniscient being who already knows everything, even what is going to happen in the future think about?

If being can arise from a state of nonbeing, then given infinite time, it will do so an infinite number of times.

Why do you say that? Maybe it would only produce one universe even if given an infinite amount of time. Anything goes, right?

What reason do we have to assume what the Bible says is accurate regards the supernatural events it describes?

Because the naturalistic alnernatives for why the tomb of Jesus was found empty fall short.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Actually, that's wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

And

http://www.amazon.com/Humes-Abject-Fail ... 0195127382

It is wrong because it harms babies. Simple as that. Morality comes from reason.

So you're saying it's wrong because it's wrong, or that it's wrong because harming is wrong?

In either case, somebody could just as easily say it's right because it's wrong and it's right because harming is right. Or somebody, like yourself for instance, could say that reason isn't objective and that it only applies to our own universe; therefore, a different universe would have different reasoning and consequently different morality. Which means morality based on reason isn't actually objective.

Or somebody could ask why base morality on reason at all? Why not go against what my reason tells me in regard to morality?

Sleepwalk, I put quite a lot of time and effort into responding to you, and don't appreciate your implication that I am "trolling". You say I am being repetitive, well, so are you, and quite frankly I find your arguments as ridiculous and frustrating as you seem to find mine.

I suspect part of this frustration and inability to take the debate any further is due to our responding to each and every point inline. From your responses it is clear to me you don't read the whole of my posts, or barely read what I am writing at all, before jumping in to respond.

In order to help the situation, I'm simply going to read through your post and pick out the pertinent points, and respond to them once.

Your points:

1) "Word definitions are important. You seem to think a natural law is some sort of cosmic policeman. It's not. If there is no reality, then that doesn't magically mean 'anything goes.'"

This seems to be a very important point you keep coming back to, so I want to clear up the mess.

Laws are certainly descriptions, but there is certainly an element of "cosmic policemen" at play, too. If laws were not in some way enforcing as well as descriptive, there would be no reason to assume the Universe would be the same tomorrow as it is today. A law simply has to act as enforcer in some way, or there could be no consistent description of anything, there would be chaos. You can define whatever holds the Universe together and keeps it consistent and repetitive something other than a "law", but that's just playing word games as far as I'm concerned.

It may be possible to separate the terms, but for now I am happy to use the word "law" as something more than mere description.

I should add though, the distinction is not important. My claim is that without these "laws" the pre-Universe state would not act the way we have come to expect the Universe to act. If you want to use "law" as "description", then we would say that the realm outside of the Universe would not be expected to work in the same way, and therefore we would not use the same "descriptions" of its properties. Already trying to write that it's clear there is an issue with the definition of "law" as mere "description".

2) "There wouldn't be any natural laws prior to the creation of the universe, because there would be no natural world to describe."

Well that depends. I would consider that realm a part of nature, as it is a part of the greater existence. It's still natural. Sure, we would mean something slightly different than "natural law", but so what?

I'm not really sure what your objection is here.

3) "In order for there to be a cause, there needs to be, at the very least, existence--or some sort of potentiality. Nonbeing has neither."

This brings us to out next big issue, the definition of "nonbeing" or "nothingness", as the pre-Universe state is usually referred to.

It seems you have actually defined "nonbeing" as having the property of "no potentiality", so by very definition it is impossible for anything to arise from it! I feel you are playing word games again, defining things so they are true by necessity.

Fine, if that's your definition of "nonbeing" then whatever was in existence pre-Universe was not "nonbeing", we can agree on that. To me, what you are describing is not only nonsensical, but probably impossible in reality. I strongly doubt such a true "absolute nothing and non-potentiality" state can exist, in fact, it can't, by definition.

So let's forget "nonbeing" and agree such a concept cannot create anything by definition. I will stick with nothingness, which I would consider as a state of existence (note I say state of existence, and not non-existence) where there is no space, no time, no cosmic policemen, no matter, no energy, but I think because of the lack of those things, this "state" is unstable and is a place of infinite possibility. Nothingness is not the same as nonbeing, nothingness exists. This goes back to what I have said as laws acting as restrictions, and the lack of laws equating to lack of restrictions.

I am also willing to accept that Krauss' Quantum Field could equate to this state, and that Universes could spring into existence from within those fields by necessity, due to the instability of nothingness. I think we're basically suggesting similar things, but I will hold off from commenting on that until I have read his new book "A Universe from Nothing" (I am on the first chapter right now).

4) "Great, so what caused the multiverse. Or was it the multiverse that popped into existence uncaused from nonbeing?"

The multiverse is not caused, it's simply a definition of "the totality of all Universes". We talk about the existence of Universes, which are actual things, the multiverse is just a description of those things. At a stretch we could say it's the space those Universes occupy, but I'm not convinced it makes sense to say that as each Universe occupies its own space-time.

5) "Oh boy, we better stop this discussion now then since logic is a wash. Our arguments amount to gobbledygook and neither of us is right or wrong. We're just drifting along in the abyss, right?"

As I have said already, logic is valid for anything and everything within this Universe.

If your objection is that throwing away logic when discussing things pre-Universe means such a discussion is pointless, I would tend to agree with you. That's why it is more in the realm of philosophy than science. It is mere speculation and guesswork and no great progress is ever likely to be made. I think science may be able to take a step back beyond the big bang and talk of quantum fields, as Krauss is doing, and in that respect progress is going to be made, but the answers are likely to seem completely contrary to reason and cannot be truly understood within the framework of the logic and reason of this Universe, and we will always move the question back and ask "what caused the fields". At the end, you always have to accept some whatever you want to call it existing eternally, even if that something is just a field of potentiality.

Now I will respond to your rebuttals of my own objections:

1) "'If something cannot come from nothing, what did God make the Universe from?' He produced it using His own faculties. God isn't nonbeing or nothing. And God didn't take nonbeing and then create using it. There was just nonbeing outside of God, and then God created universe using His omnipotence."

Now that's a convoluted bunch of gobbledygook if I've ever seen it!

How can this be acceptable as an explanation to you, while you imply I am trolling for thinking something can come from nothing?

You say God isn't a "thing". He is not material, and he is not made of matter. Well, matter and material came to exist where it didn't exist before, so you cannot get away from the fact he created something from nothing.

There was nonbeing outside of God, and then he created it using his omnipotence?

Is that really your answer, an appeal to magic or omnipotence?

The answer you should have given is that God was able to do it as he is not bound by law, and the same reasoning applies to something arising from nothing in the pre-Universe state. No law, no enforcer, no issue.

2) "'If time does not exist, God cannot do anything.' God is an unembodied mind, so He possesses no moving parts; He doesn't have neurons that send neurotransmitters. He's not some sort of computer or natural process, so there were no temporal events going on inside His mind. He existed in a timeless state (because there were no temporal events) prior to the creation of the universe, but stepped inside time subsequent to creation. Creation was the first temporal event, in other words. I already wrote that once God acted He stepped inside of time. I don't think He does think, at least not in the same sense that we think. What would an omniscient being who already knows everything, even what is going to happen in the future think about?"

You're just moving the problem back a step. Stepping into time is an event, or a change, and changes and events cannot occur outside of time. God can move from one "time" into another "time" but he cannot step into time if he is not in some sort of time at all. No time, no change, no "stepping into" anything.

This is a clear problem for you greater than any you have posed to atheism, or the something from nothing discussion.

By the way, the implication that God does not think seems pretty contrary to the Bible to me.

3) "'What reason do we have to assume what the Bible says is accurate regards the supernatural events it describes?' Because the naturalistic alnernatives for why the tomb of Jesus was found empty fall short."

If we have no confidence in the Bible, we need not have confidence there was an empty tomb at all, let alone resurrection. The claims are at best unreliable, at worst complete fiction.

4) "'It is wrong because it harms babies. Simple as that. Morality comes from reason.' So you're saying it's wrong because it's wrong, or that it's wrong because harming is wrong? In either case, somebody could just as easily say it's right because it's wrong and it's right because harming is right. Or somebody, like yourself for instance, could say that reason isn't objective and that it only applies to our own universe; therefore, a different universe would have different reasoning and consequently different morality. Which means morality based on reason isn't actually objective. Or somebody could ask why base morality on reason at all? Why not go against what my reason tells me in regard to morality?"

I am saying it is wrong because morality is defined as "the differentiation of good versus bad", and "harm" would have to be "bad" by definition, and help "good" by definition. If you're harming others you are being bad by definition, and therefore immoral by definition. The converse is true of "good" actions.

I would like to propose that there is no morality in Christianity. There is only "things God likes", and "things he doesn't". If he thinks "rape" is good, it's good. How is this a basis for meaningful objective morality? The whim of a tyrant?

Morality in Christianity is inherently pointless. Christians define morality to be "what God decides", and I define morality to be "what reason dictates" based on the principles of "harm" being "bad", and "help" being "good", and harm is bad by our own definitions of the terms.

That does not make morality subjective, it becomes something akin to mathematics, with perfect reason, we can calculate perfect morality.

Unless morality exists outside of God himself, and the Bible implies this is not the case, then the morality of Christianity is just God's opinion and is no more objective than a morality based on reason.

Humphreys,

From page 4 of this thread..

You seem to be under the illusion I care about your opinion.

LOL LOL LOL Humphreys...Do you think I Post on here to you and for you??

I keep telling you about sensitivity and ego. You keep demonstrating it for those out here who can see it for what it is.

No problem with me. I just point it out.




Continuing on here.


To my limited knowledge the universe got here by four means..or four explainations.



1. THe Universe is Imaginary.

2. THe universe got here by a means we can explain...we can measure and therefore we can duplicate it.

3. The universe got here by a means we cannot explain , cannot measure, cannot duplicate.

4, THe Universe never got here at all.


THat is my limited understanding of how the universe got here. Any of you out there have any other explainations?

However..the universe got here....by what ever means it arrived...I do not believe I am the pivotal cog in it remaing here nor how it functions. I believe it is perfctly capable of functioning without me or my input.

THerefore I dont waste my time trying to promote my beliefs on this to show or demonstrate that I am extra ordinary or need this as a CRUTCH/RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM to get over on others...to put them down in order to promote myself.




Sleepwalk,

There is no scientific evidence that the quantum field has always existed; and a quantum field that has always existed would run into the problem of infinite regress, so it doesn't appear logical either.

I have found this to be a huge problem for both Believers and unbelievers..good point.
Same with the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

But I don't think 99% of theists lose arguments with atheists; and there are just as many unsophisticated atheists as there are theists

Good point here as well. I agree. The place where I take note of many people is when I find that they become emotional train wrecks if you disagree with them.
I do not believe that this universe depends on our understanding or emotions on how it works to exist...we are not the pivotal cog of that existance..no matter what explainations we try to offer for how things got here.

No, because I'm interested in what is true.

Exactly correct. What is true..not drama, labeling, and name calling to mask unsophistication and base uncivility...trying to pass itself off as excellence or the moral high ground.

Yeah, you just need to believe that nonbeing can produce a universe. No magic involved and perfectly rational.

You know ..this is actually a good point. I had not quite thought of it that way because I know that this universe does not depend on our understanding it for it's existance. But you have made a good point here and thanks for that. I will keep it in mind.

I keep seeing this line of thought coming back up ..over and over Sleepwalk.

Are you going back to that whacky idea that natural laws are cosmic policemen again?

Is this a definition or description of a religion..a belief system?? Not Atheism??

THanks for your very interesting posts.

Orangetom

orangetom1999 wrote:Humphreys,

From page 4 of this thread..

You seem to be under the illusion I care about your opinion.

LOL LOL LOL Humphreys...Do you think I Post on here to you and for you??

I keep telling you about sensitivity and ego. You keep demonstrating it for those out here who can see it for what it is.

Well, you keep responding to me telling me what you think of me, you do a good impression of someone who wants me to know what you think.

The irony of the board's "Headmaster" calling someone else egotistical is lost on you, I'm sure.