Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Earth was not created. It was formed as the result of natural force and how the ingredients for it were formed from supernovas, commits, white dwarfs, etc.

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

There is obviously enough scientific data to enable plausible speculation, although I am in no position to say how plausible. On the other hand, data pointing to God as the creator of the universe is absolutely none existent. So now I am wondering who, exactly, is making the assumption and insisting we believe it.

[Immanuel Can]

And neither does it say how vast the heavens were, and what an insignificant little spec the Earth was in comparison.

No, it doesn't. You're right. But why would it need to? I can't see how that would be problematic, either way.

It's just that a detail like how microscopically miniscule the Earth is in an unimaginably vast universe seems like something one would mention when describing creation.

It's not relevant, of course. As "small" as you may think this place is, it's still a place that's important to God. And that makes it very important indeed.

But just to play ball, let's ask, "What would the RIGHT size for a place to be, before you suppose it would be okay for God to take notice of it?" Is there a magic scale upon which an important drama can be played out? Are we too small for that? What makes you think so?

[Immanuel Can]

This idea is expressed with metaphysical clarity by Hamlet:

That's a somewhat different idea. Hamlet's idea is determinism. He thinks that by nature of his birth as Prince of Denmark, he's been fated to purge the country of its evil, and that he can't get out of that role, no matter what he does. Hence it's an expression of "cursed spite."

Says Hamlet:

Virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock / but we shall relish of it.

Relevance?

Says Gertrude:

“Oh Hamlet, speak no more! Thou turn’st my eyes into my very soul: And then I see such black and grained spots / As will not leave their tinct.”

The reason — or a major reason — Hamlet resonates so powerfully for us (still) is because like us he is confronting metaphysical conditions so demanding it can drive someone mad.

What? Like marrying your husband's murderer?

I think you're safe from that. Maybe not.

[Immanuel Can]

There is obviously enough scientific data to enable plausible speculation, although I am in no position to say how plausible.

So, you don't know what data there is, or how plausible it is, but you still insist "there's obviously enough" of it?

On the other hand, data pointing to God as the creator of the universe is absolutely none existent.

That's pretty obviously not true. And if you investigate, you'll find out it's not. The whole fields of apologetics and what's called "natural theology," or used to be, are full of such data. And science itself is replete with it, for that matter...as are your own observations, if you were paying the right sort of attention to what your eyes are showing you.

But I think perhaps you're just predetermined not to see it: and my own evidence for that speculation is that you claim things are "obvious" and backed with "scientific data" even when you admit you know nothing about their quantity or plausibility. So the epistemic method there cannot be very sophisticated, can it?

[Immanuel Can]

We have access to fossils and minerals.

Fossils come AFTER the Earth exists. And minerals come into being only AFTER the universe itself is created. So neither was present when the First Cause, whatever it was, acted.

I am taking your attention to the natural phenomena in which first Earth was formed and then we have life on it. I am not talking about the first cause here.

Then you're wildly leaping ahead. You're taking for granted the existence of everything, and not explaining the ultimate origins of anything. That seems a very different kind of conversation than we were having just a short while ago.

Why in your opinion God mean to include the creation of Earth in the beginning? He could say otherwise. For example, God created Heaven first in the beginning. He then created Earth. As He says about the creation of light.

"In the beginning" doesn't specify whether a day or a period of beginning is what we are supposed to understand there. So I don't conjecture on that.

I am not talking about the first cause here.

That's what I'm interested in discussing. That's what I'd like to resolve first: is the First Cause more likely to be a 'force' of some kind, or an intentional Agent? That's what I want us to decide.

...the rest of things such as the manifestation of life can happen as a result of proper conditions that existed on Earth simply follows.

Oh, good heavens! Nobody thinks that any of this stuff is just automatic. That's not remotely plausible, and it has no hint of an explanation in it. That's just blind assumption, no more. When there's a universe, it's not automatic that it would be a coherent one. It's not automatic that it would have planets and stars in it. It's not automatic that it would have functional systems of physical laws in it. It's not automatic that it would have atmorpheres, or gravitational fields, or radiation patterns of a particular kind. It's not automatic that any planet would be of size and configuration to even potentially harbour life. It's not automatic that any such planetoid WOULD harbour any life. It's not automatic what that life would consist of...and so on. Anybody who imagines that this stuff "just follows" really is very far from understanding the first thing about the whole issue, or about the scientific requirements for a cohesive universe populated with beings capable of asking this very question.

[Harbal]

No, it doesn't. You're right. But why would it need to? I can't see how that would be problematic, either way.

It's just that a detail like how microscopically miniscule the Earth is in an unimaginably vast universe seems like something one would mention when describing creation.

It's not relevant, of course. As "small" as you may think this place is, it's still a place that's important to God.

But is it important to God? In our own galaxy, we are less than a pinprick, and in the universe, our galaxy is less than a pinprick. It makes one wonder how many more zillions of Genesises he's performed.

The guy must be a genecidal maniac.

But just to play ball, let's ask, "What would the RIGHT size for a place to be

You should think of it in terms of scale, not size. Imagine you are standing on a beach, and someone says to you, "buried somewhere in this mass of sand, there is one grain that is far more important than all the others". Get what I mean?

Is there a magic scale upon which an important drama can be played out? Are we too small for that?

I'm not saying we are too small for an important drama, but perhaps it is only important to us; the performers of it.

What makes you think so?

I'm probably not as good at avoiding obvious conclusions as you are.

[Immanuel Can]

It's just that a detail like how microscopically miniscule the Earth is in an unimaginably vast universe seems like something one would mention when describing creation.

It's not relevant, of course. As "small" as you may think this place is, it's still a place that's important to God.

But is it important to God?

Ask Him. He says it is.

But just to play ball, let's ask, "What would the RIGHT size for a place to be

You should think of it in terms of scale, not size. Imagine you are standing on a beach, and someone says to you, "buried somewhere in this mass of sand, there is one grain that is far more important than all the others". Get what I mean?

If I say to you, buried somewhere in this pile of straw is a strand of gold...do you get how that changes the equation? And if I had, myself, put that strand of gold there, I might very well be interested in where it was.

[iambiguous]

Well, if we're going to get to God's doorstep, I'd rather the people I'm talking to knew exactly how to get there. It's no good giving them an address they don't know how to find for themselves.

How to find it?

Start here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

More to the point though [mine] if he is convinced this is a crucial step to finding God, why on Earth does he not come back to it over and over again?

Why does he not explore those videos with those like me? And henry and the Atheists? After all, if there is a God, that settles it. Moral Commandments are objective precisely because they are backed up by both omniscience and omnipotence.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle?

Or is that the whole point of this -- -- instead?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Relevance?

The better question is what is the relevance of my focus on your abounding intellectual errors. Please don't take it personally. When I confront you I am (I believe) confronting the fanatical mind and I believe this is a duty.

I do understand that many people -- obviously you! -- would have difficulty in seeing Shakespeare in the light of sacred art, but what interests me about your religious fundamentalism is how it determines your mental processes and the lack of a connecting insight. You can well understand the notion of Eve's sin -- and it centered on Eve and her errant will -- but you seem to have difficulty in seeing the issue, say, outside of the Christian redemptive context. As illustrative of a more universal principle, and indeed an error or tendency to error that exists outside of what is pictured in modern Christian Evangelical belief.

The reason this concerns me -- is of interest to me I should say -- is because I do not think that the elements of the Christian story are void of important meaning. But as I often say you are the enemy of such an understanding of these meanings. And you so turn off everyone you encounter that they must *block* you and, as a result, block themselves from worthy considerations and ideas. You are the worst apologist for the teaching you want so hard to represent.

The horrifying thing about your whole shtick is that you are completely impervious to any critique. I do not think you have ever engaged, not once, with the (I think) genuine critiques that are directed at you. What one gets from you is *I am right all others are wrong*.

The *relevance* then is to point a light at you, your method, your intractability, and to see your style of belief as defective. Will this get through to you -- of course not!

[Harbal]

There is obviously enough scientific data to enable plausible speculation, although I am in no position to say how plausible.

So, you don't know what data there is, or how plausible it is, but you still insist "there's obviously enough" of it?

Correct. My trust in science is based on its track record.

That's pretty obviously not true. And if you investigate, you'll find out it's not. The whole fields of apologetics and what's called "natural theology," or used to be, are full of such data. And science itself is replete with it, for that matter...as are your own observations, if you were paying the right sort of attention to what your eyes are showing you.

Okay, give us some scientific data that shows God created everything, or even that he exists. I don't remember God ever being mentioned in science and physics lessons at school.

But I think perhaps you're just predetermined not to see it: and my own evidence for that speculation is that you claim things are "obvious" and backed with "scientific data" even when you admit you know nothing about their quantity or plausibility. So the epistemic method there cannot be very sophisticated, can it?

It's nothing to do with science, really. The bottom line is; I don't believe in mythical creatures. You could prove to me that everything I think I know about science is wrong, but that would still be there.

[Immanuel Can]

Relevance?

The better question is...

Oh. So "None," is the answer. You were quoting a play you don't understand.

I see.

[Immanuel Can]

There is obviously enough scientific data to enable plausible speculation, although I am in no position to say how plausible.

So, you don't know what data there is, or how plausible it is, but you still insist "there's obviously enough" of it?

Correct. My trust in science is based on its track record.

Apparently not. Apparently, your faith is based on the hope that science has data you've never heard of, and the quality of which you don't know, if they have it.

That's pretty obviously not true. And if you investigate, you'll find out it's not. The whole fields of apologetics and what's called "natural theology," or used to be, are full of such data. And science itself is replete with it, for that matter...as are your own observations, if you were paying the right sort of attention to what your eyes are showing you.

Okay, give us some scientific data that shows God created everything, or even that he exists.

I've been doing that on the other threads you've been following. So why do it here?

But I think perhaps you're just predetermined not to see it: and my own evidence for that speculation is that you claim things are "obvious" and backed with "scientific data" even when you admit you know nothing about their quantity or plausibility. So the epistemic method there cannot be very sophisticated, can it?

It's nothing to do with science, really.

Ah. There's the truth of the matter.

Well, thanks for at least being frank about that.

[iambiguous]

...the Bible says the same thing. It asks of God,

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your hands,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)

On the other hand, suppose that verse had read...

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your hands,
The moon and the stars and the solar system and the trillions of stars in the billions of galaxies and the quasars and the pulsars and quarks and the neutrinos and dark matter and dark energy, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)[/quote]

Imagine our reaction to the Christian Bible if there were mentions of super novas and gamma ray bursts and dinosaurs and ice ages and magnetic pole reversals, and DNA and the like.

[Harbal]

It's not relevant, of course. As "small" as you may think this place is, it's still a place that's important to God.

But is it important to God?

Ask Him. He says it is.

But I don't have your apparent ability to talk to someone who isn't there and get a answer.

You should think of it in terms of scale, not size. Imagine you are standing on a beach, and someone says to you, "buried somewhere in this mass of sand, there is one grain that is far more important than all the others". Get what I mean?

If I say to you, buried somewhere in this pile of straw is a strand of gold...do you get how that changes the equation? And if I had, myself, put that strand of gold there, I might very well be interested in where it was.

I would wonder why on earth would someone bury a strand of gold in a pile of straw.

[iambiguous]

But just to play ball, let's ask, "What would the RIGHT size for a place to be, before you suppose it would be okay for God to take notice of it?" Is there a magic scale upon which an important drama can be played out? Are we too small for that? What makes you think so?

Come on, Mr. Cant. Suppose the universe was not as astrophysicists say it is now...

Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.

The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.

So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.

To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years.

Or consider this:
"To get to the closest galaxy to ours, the Canis Major Dwarf, at Voyager's speed, it would take approximately 749,000,000 years to travel the distance of 25,000 light years! If we could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 25,000 years!"

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.537 million light years away.

Suppose, instead, God did create a universe that clearly revolves around us. In this universe, there were many, many other inhabited planets within reach. And on planet after planet after planet, Christians prevailed.

I suspect even the Atheists might be amazed at that.